.03  Hfe 


f 


« 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 
in  2015 


i 

littps://arcliive.org/details/reportoftrialoffOOIiill_0 


TRIAL  OF  FRIENDS 


AT 


STEUBENVILL.E,  OHIO, 


From  thk  15th  to  the  26th  of  October,  1828, 


Before  the  Hon.  Jeremiah  H.  Hallock,  Esq.  President  Judg 
the  5th  Judicial  district  of  the  state. 


BV  MARCUS  T.  C.  GOUI.D, 

STEWOGKAPHEK. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

JESPER  HARDING,  PRINTER. 

1829 


Eastern  Dist'  icf  of  Penmylvania,  to  -vit .-  ' 

BE  IT  RKMEMBnkEO,  That  on  the  seventeenth  day  of 
*  SEAL  »  •f''n"ary,  in  the  fifty-third  yer,r  of  tiie  independence  of  the 
%■        '    I  United  States  of  America,  A.  I).  1829, 

M.viirrs  T.  C.  Gould, 
of  the  Slid  disti  ict,  ha?  deposited  m  this  office  tlie-titlo  of  k  book,  the  right 
whereof  lie  cUiimslas  proprietor,  in  the  words  follovviiig,  to  wit: 

"  Ueport  of  the  Trial  of  Friends,  at  'stenbenvdle,  Ohio,  from  the  15th  to 
the  26th  of  October,  1828.  before  the  Mon.  Jerein  ah  H.  Hailock,  Esq. 
President  Judge  oftlie  j;h  Judicial  district  of  tlie  state.  By  Mai-Ciis  T.  C. 
Gould.  Stenographer." 

In  confornnity  to  the  Act  of  tJie. Congress  of  the  United  States,  intituled,  • 
"  An  act  foi'  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  bj  securini;-  the  copies  of  nia|)s, 
charts,  and  boic  ;,  to  the  authors  anv!  proprietors  or  such  copies,  during  the 
times  therein  rneationed."  And  aisd  to  tue  act,  entitled,  "  \n  act  supple- 
menlary  to  an  net,  enlil-ed,  "An  act  for  the  encoiirigcment  ol  learning,  by 
securing  tiie  copies  of  nuirjs,  charts,  and  books,  to  tl'ie  authors  and  ptoprie- 
tors  of  sucU  copies  dunng  tlie  t:nies  therein  ir.en' loned,"  and  extending  the 
beiu  i.ts  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing,  engraving,  and  etching  historical 
and  other  prints." 

D.  CALDWELL, 

.     Clerk  of  the  Eastern  District  of  jfennsylra.nt'a. 


INDEX. 


Askewy  I'arker, 

examination, 
Uarnavd,  Itichard, 

deposition, 
Barnes,  Josluia, 

deposition. 
Bates,  Rlislia, 

examination, 

recalled, 

reculleil, 
Bates,  Fleniino-, 

dop  liltlon. 
Bates,  \Vm.  S. 

examination, 
Batten,  Jolin, 

examination. 
Berry,  Samiie], 

examination, 
Betlle,  Samnel, 

deposition, 
Bevan,  Stacey, 

examination, 
Braithwaite,  Isaac, 

deposition, 
Branson,  Isaac, 

examination, 
Carro!!,  Br.  Tliomas, 

examination. 
Cleaver,  JoiVn, 

examination, 


83,  85 
97 
340 


159 


135 
173 


TAtiE 

Coffin,  Abel, 
52  to  57  deposition, 
defence, 
97,  103    Deed  of  trust, 

Dilworth,  Abraham, 
105,  106  ■     examination,        163,  165 

Dilworth,  Itiiodes, 
7,  28  examination, 
176,  178    Dilworth,  Wm. 

184  e.amination, 
recalled, 
80,  83    I'rench,  Israel, 

examination,        173,  176 
184    Galbreath,  Nathan, 

examination,        160,  162 
61,  62    Goodnow,  John  M.  esq. 

speech  for  state,  185,  222 
159,  160    Hallock,  Jeremiah  II.  esq. 

decision,  335 
68,  72    Hamilton,  James, 

examination, 
91,  95    Hamilton,  Dr.  \^'^B. 

exaMiinalioil, 
72,  76    Ilairison,  J(n'dan, 

examination, 
44    Heiild,  James, 

.  examination,        179,  180 
.    114,  122    Iloyle,  John, 

.  examination,  185 
157,  159    floyle,  Joseph,  examination,  168 


152;  157 
63,  55 
37,  44 


iv 


Index. 


PAGB 

Hubbard,  Wm.  B.  esq. 

speech  for  defendants,  222,  256 
James,  Isaac, 

testimony  of  disownment,  37 
kins,  Wm. 

deposition,  76,  30 

Judkins,  Dr.  Wm. 

examinatioD,        178,  179 
Kirk,  Caleb, 

examination,       172,  173 
Ladd,  Benjamin  W. 

affidavit,  5 
examination,  44,  52 

recalled,  181,  183 

Ladd,  Thomas, 

deposition,  85,  87 

Lewis,  Jehu, 

examination,       165,  168 
Magar,  Wm. 

examination,       106,  114 
M 'Bride,  James, 

examination,        183,  184 
Opening  of  the  trial,  7 
Peaslee,  Amos, 
certificate  from  Woodbury 

Mcn(hly  Meeting,  105 
certificate  from  Salem  Quar- 
terly Meeting;  .  105 
deposition,  103 
Pennington,  S.  _ 

examination,  62,  63 

Pickering,  Levi, 

examination,        124,  130 
Pierce,  Jonathan, 

ex'amination,       169,  172 
Scholfield,  David,  examinatioo,  139 


PAGE 

Scholfield,  David, 

testimony  of  disownment,  134 
Sears,  Peter,  , 

examination,  96 
Sharon,  Wm. 

examination,        122,  124 
Smith,  fieorge, 

examination,  95 
Smith,  John, 

examination,       •  184 
Stanton,  James, 

deposition,    .      87,  89 
Steer,  Davids 

examination,  65,  67 

recalled,  178 
Tappan,  Benjamin,  esqi 

speech  for  defendants,  257,  283 
Tatum,  Josiah, 

deposition,  89,  94 

Taylor,  Jonathan, 

examination,  28,  37 

recalled,  180,  181 

Tolerton,-  James,  , 

examination,        162,  163 
Updegraff,  Joseph, 

examination,       135,  144 
Updegraff,  Israel, 

examination,        144,  ■  152 
Walker,  Lewis, 

examination,  57,  61 

Warrant  against  David  Hilles 

and  Isaac  James,  5 
Wood,  Nathan, 

examination,  184 
Wright,  John  C.  esq. 

speech  for  state,  283,  334 


AFFIDAVIT. 


State  of  Ohio,  Jcjftrson  county,  ss. 

,-  ,  -)  On  the  9th  clay  of  September,  eighteen  hundred 
L'"  ^'J  and  twenty-eight,  personally  came  before  me,  Ben- 
jamin W.  Ladd,  and  on  his  solemn  affirmation  deposeth  and 
saith,  that  David  Hilles  and  Isaac  James,  both  of  said  county, 
on  the  eighth  day  of  September,  instant,  at  Mount  Pleasant, 
in  said  county,  did,  with  others,  unlawfully,  with  great  force 
and  violence,  interrupt  and  disturb  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
the  society  of  Friends,  when  met  together  for  discipline — the 
members  of  said  Yearly  Meeting,  then  and  there  being  en- 
gaged in  the  performance  of  a  duty  appertaining  to  them,  as 
members  of  said  society  of  Friends. 

Benjamin  \V.  Ladd. 

Affirmed  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  the  9th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, A.  D.  1828. 

Jerkmiah  H.  Hallock, 
President  Judge  of  the  ffth  Judicial  District  of  Ohio. 

warrant. 

To  the  Sheriff  of  the  County  of  Jefferson,  his  deputy,  or  any  Con- 
stable in  said  County,  greeting : — 

Whereas,  complaint  has  been  made  before  me,  President 
Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  in  the  fifth  judicial  dis- 
trict of  the  State  of  Ohio,  upon  the  affirmation  of  Benjamin 
W.  Ladd,  that  David  Hilles  and  Isaac  James,  both  of  said 
county,  did  on  the  eighth  day  of  September,  instant,  at 
Mount  Pleasant,  in  said  county,  with  great  force  and  violence, 
unlawfully  interrupt  and  disturb  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  the 
society  of  Friends,  when  met  together  for  discipline;  the  mem- 
bers of  said  Yearly  Meeting,  then  and  there  being  engaged  in 
the  performance  of  a  duty  appertaining  to  them,  as  members  of 
said  society  of  Friends. 

These  are  therefore  to  command  you,  that  you  take  the  said 
David  Hilles  and  Isaac  James,  if  they  be  found  in  your  county, 
or  further  jurisdiction,  and  them  safely  keep,  so  that  you  have 
their  bodies  forthwith  before  me,  to  answer  to  the  said  com- 
plaint, and  to  be  further  dealt  with  according  to  law.  Given 
under  my  hand  and  seal  this  ninth  day  of  September,  A.  D. 
1828. 

[l.  s.]  Jeremiah  H.  Hallock, 

President  Judge  of  the  fifth  Judicial  District  of  Ohio. 

I 


September  llth,  1828.  Agreeably  to  the  command  of  the 
within  writ,  I  have  taken  the  bodies  of  the  within  named  Da- 
vid Hilles  and  Isaac  James,  and  have  them  now  here  to  answer 
to  the  said  complaint. 

N.  D.  SwEARiNGEN,  Deputy  Sheriff. 

Defendants  were  brought  before  me  at  the  Court  House  in 
Steubenville,  September  llth,  and  on  motion  of  defendants,  the 
trial  was  adjourned  to  the  1 5th  of  October  next,  at  2  o'clock  P. 
M.  to  be  held  at  the  Court  House  in  Steubenville — Defendants 
consenting  that  depositions  of  witnesses  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
plaint may  be  taken  upon  notice,  and  read  upon  the  hearing. 

Jeremiah  H.  Hallock. 


1 


TRIAL.  OF  FRIENDS 

AT 

STEUBENVILLE,  OHIO. 


Steubenville,  Ohio,  Wednesday,  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Oct.  15,  1828. 

State  of  Ohio,  Jefferson  Co.  sa. 
State  of  Ohio       ^     This  was  a  prosecution  against  the  de- 
vs.  fendants  for  disturbing  the  Ohio  Yearly 

David  Hilles  V»Meeting  of  Friends,  under  a  statute  for 

and  the  punishment  of  disturbers  of  religious 

Isaac  James.  J  societies. 

Tlie  complaint  was  tried  before  the  Honourable  Jeremiah 
H.  Hallock,  Esq.,  President  Judge  of  the  Fifth  Judicial  Dis- 
trict of  Ohio,  sitting  as  a  Magistrate. 

Counsel  for  the  Prosecution. 

Humphrey  H.  Leavitt,  Esq.  State's  Attorney, 
John  C.  Wright, 
John  M.  Goodnow, 
Samuel  Slokeley, 
Daniel  L.  Collier, 
James  Collier, 
Andrew  Loomis,  and 
George  W.  Banks,  Esqrs. 

For  the  Defendants. 

Hon.  Benjamin  Tappan, 
William  B.  Hubbard, 
William  Kennon,  and 
Roswell  Marsh,  Esqrs. 


Examination  of  tcitnesses  on  the  part  of  the  Prosecution,  by  Mr. 
Wright. 

Elisha  Bates  called  and  affirmed. 

Are  you  the  clerk  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends?  Yes. 
Have  you  the  records  of  that  Meeting?  I  have — they  are 
here.  Witness  was  requested  to  read  the  opening  minute  ol 
the  late  Yearly  Meeting,  but  it  was  objected  to  by  defendants' 
counsel.    Mr.  Wright  said  the  8th  of  September  was  the  time 


Trial  of  Friends 


appointed  for  the  meeting  of  Friends  belonging  to  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting;  and,  as  he  had  been  advised,  the  meeting  assembled 
at  the  usual  time  and  place.  About  the  time  of  organizing 
the  meeting,  it  being  a  meeting  for  discipline,  and  select  in  its 
character,  not  for  worship,  or  public  in  its  character,  the  two 
persons  complained  of,  and  others,  took  upon  themselves  to 
organize  another  meeting,  to  the  disturbance  of  the  society  of 
Friends,  and  to  the  interruption  of  its  business. 

They  proceeded,  in  furtherance  of  their  design,  to  the  dis- 
placement of  the  clerk,  who  held  his  office  by  the  regular  de- 
cision of  the  meeting,  and  took  from  him  by  force,  the  table 
on  which  he  wrote  his  minutes. 

This  violence  went  to  such  an  extent,  that  it  was  impossible 
for  Friends  to  proceed  in  the  transaction  of  their  business, 
and  they  were  compelled  to  adjourn  till  another  time,  leaving 
these  two  persons  and  others  combined  with  them,  in  posses- 
sion of  the  house.  These  are  the  leading  facts:  and  to  sus- 
tain these  we  have  thought  it  necessary  to  show  that  a  meeting 
was  held;  that  it  was  a  religious  meeting;  and  that  it  was  held 
for  purposes  of  worship  and  discipline  connected  with  their 
church  government. 

We  suppose,  that  in  the  course  of  the  examination,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  inquire  whether  the  assembly  that  we  call  the 
society  of  Friends,  was,  in  fact,  the  society  of  Friends.  We 
do  not  know  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  go  to  this  extent,  but 
our  idea  is,  that  it  will,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they  were 
a  religious  society,  and  whether,  being  such  society,  they  were 
assembled,  and  whether,  being  so  assembled  at  their  regular 
and  ordinary  place,  they  were  disturbed.  With  a  view  to  this, 
we  offer  the  records  of  the  meeting,  to  show  that  the  society 
who  complain,  and  who  were  disturbed,  were  prima  facie  the 
society  of  Friends,  having  in  their  possession  the  records  and 
offices  of  the  society,  and  every  thing  which  constitutes  a  body 
of  men,  when  assembled,  a  society,  within  the  description  of 
the  law.  And  I  will  go  one  step  farther:  we  contend,  that  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends  is  a  society  of  re- 
presentatives. For  instance,  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  a  meeting 
of  representatives  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings  that  compose 
the  Yearly  Meeting — the  society  consisting  of  Preparative, 
Monthly,  and  Quarterly  Meetings. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio  consists  of  five  Quarterly 
Meetings.  The  business  which  has  been  heretofore  transact- 
ed by  the  society,  is  to  be  seen  by  the  records;  which  also  show, 
that  it  has  been  transacted  by  those  who  now  have  the  records, 
and  who  are  in  possession  of  the  official  functions  and  rights 
of  the  society  of  Friends. 

Mr.  Tappan,  for  the  defendants,  said,  if  the  gentlemen  mean 
to  draw  into  the  view  of  the  honourable  judge,  the  idea  that 


ai  Sieubenvillc,  Ohio. 


9 


a  part  of  this  religious  society  ought  to  be  excluded,  it  may 
be  necessary  to  decide  whether  the  other  part  are  the  society 
par  excellence.  To  determine  this,  it  would  be  necessary  to  go 
into  an  examination  ot"  their  doctrines  and  tenets. 

This  is  a  complaint  against  these  men  for  disturbing  a  so- 
cietyj  and  here  is  produced  and  offered  in  evidence,  the  record 
of  an  antecedent  meeting.  We  admit  that  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing of  the  society  of  Friends  was  held  on  the  8th  day  of  Sep- 
tember— that  there  was  a  meeting — that  our  clients  are  mem- 
bers, and  they  also  met.    There  is  then  no  need  of  proof. 

We  are  charged  with  a  criminal  offence,  for  disturbing  a 
meeting  of  which  we  are  members.  This  court  certainly  are 
not  going  to  weigh  in  the  scales  of  justice,  the  faith  or  reli- 
gious opinions  of  these  people.  No  matter  if  the  prosecutors 
were  the  greatest  saints,  and  my  clients  the  greatest  sinners, 
they  have  the  same  legal  rights.  My  clients  are  not  to  be  con- 
demned for  not  coming  up  to  the  faith  of  the  orthodox,  but 
they  are  to  be  tried  for  a  criminal  offence. 

Mr.  Wright  understood  the  objection  was  to  Elisha  Bates 
reading  the  minutes  of  that  meeting.  He  did  not  know  how  they 
were  otherwise  to  prove  that  such  a  meeting  was  held,  as  there 
was  no  other  evidence  of  the  fact.  The  gentleman  says,  he 
admits  the  fact,  but  it  can  only  be  proved  by  the  exhibition 
of  the  records;  then  why  is  this  evidence  objected  to?  I  know 
not  what  their  tenets  are,  and  care  not  what  they  are.  If  the 
court  say  we  can  introduce  a  less  species  of  evidence  in  pre- 
ference to  this,  I  am  content;  I  do  not  wish  to  take  up  time, 
but  to  get  at  the  subject  as  soon  as  possible. 

Mr.  Tappan.  The  gentleman  wants  to  introduce  this  record 
to  show  who  are  the  members  of  the  society.  It  has  been 
stated  that  they  have  the  books,  and  that  they  have  made  the 
entries  there;  but  it  does  not  depend  on  the  entries  which  they 
have  made,  whether  they  are  members  of  the  society.  If  they 
have  entered  all  their  own  names  there  and  left  out  my  client's, 
what  evidence  is  it,  but  that  they  have  entered  some  and  left 
out  others. 

Mr.  Wright  thought  the  gentleman  was  out  of  his  reckon- 
ing. It  was  proposed  to  prove  that  this  was  the  record  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  not  of  those  for  whom  he  had  the  honour  to 
appear,  nor  those  on  the  opposite  side. 

Mr.  Tappan  said  the  society  was  divided  into  two  parties; 
that  each  had  evidence  to  offer;  and  he  wanted  to  know  if  they 
could  be  evidence  for  themselves. 

Mr.  Wright  said  if  there  were  two  Yearly  Meetings,  it  re- 
mained to  be  proven. 

Judge  Hallock  thought  it  was  very  little  difference  where 
they  commenced.  The  prosecution  must  show  that  there  was 
a  meeting,  and  that  it  was  regularly  organized.    The  tcstinio- 


10 


Trial  of  Friends 


ny  of  Elisha  Bates  was  material,  for  he  was  acting  as  clerk. 
What  the  effect  of  his  testimony  would  be,  could  not  be  fore- 
seen, but  that  it  was  important,  there  could  be  no  doubt. 

The  witness  then  proceeded,  with  the  records  in  his  hand, 
being  questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. 

At  what  time  did  the  meeting  now  in  question  convene? 
On  the  8th  of  Ninth-month  last,  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning. 
Does  the  record  show  the  names  of  the  representatives?  It 
does — it  is  usual  for  them  to  be  called,  to  organize  the  meet- 
ing, and  it  is  not  considered  as  fully  organized  until  they  are 
called.  The  original  reports  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings 
are  also  here. 

Mr.  Tappan.  When  was  that  record  made?  At  the  date 
of  it.  Is  it  the  original  entry?  No.  It  is  a  transcribed  copy 
from  the  rough  minutes.  Mr.  Tappan  said  the  original  mi- 
nutes must  be  produced.  The  judge  thought  it  not  material; 
and  the  witness  being  interrogated  as  to  David  Hilles  and 
Isaac  James,  proceeded  as  follows. 

I  am  not  positive  that  I  saw  David  Hilles  till  I  saw  him 
standing  on  the  seat  of  the  ministers'  gallery,  not  far  from 
the  seat  usually  occupied  by  the  clerk.  But  previous  to  that, 
the  business  of  the  meeting  had  been  completely  interrupted 
by  a  proposition  from  an  individual  present. 

It  was  the  meeting  for  business,  that  convened  on  the 
8lh  of  the  month,  and  the  2d  of  the  week.  There  is  no  public 
meeting  on  Second-day,  but  the  meeting  for  business  opens  on 
that  day,  to  which  members  only  have  access.  Who  constitute 
the  members  entitled  to  access?  '  I  understand  they  are  all 
those  persons  who  are  members  by  birth,  or  whose  parents 
are  members,  and  all  that  are  received  by  application,  and 
admitted  by  Monthly  Meetings  as  members.  Who  con- 
stitute the  body  of  the  society?  The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio, 
in  its  territorial  limits,  emliraces  the  society  on  the  west  of  the 
mountains,  as  far  as  Muskingumj  and  it  is  understood  that 
all  the  members  within  those  limits  are  included,  and  all 
have  the  privilege  of  attending.  But  the  Quarterly  Meetings, 
previous  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  appoint  representatives  to 
the  Yearly  Meeting;  and  the  discipline  requires,  that  these 
representatives,  previous  to  the  time  of  meeting  at  ten  o'clock, 
shall  place  the  reports  of  their  respective  Quarterly  Meetings 
in  the  hands  of  the  clerk  of  the  preceding  year,  who  holds 
his  place  for  one  year.  He  is  appointed  on  the  second  day  of 
the  meeting,  and  holds  his  place  till  the  same  time  at  the  next 
sitting.  They  are  required  thus  to  place  the  reports  in  the 
hands  of  the  clerk,  in  order  that  by  entering  the  names,  time 
may  be  saved. 

It  is  usual  for  the  representatives,  and  all  others  who  are 
privileged  by  the  discipline  to  sit  in  these  meetings,  to  com- 


at  Steubenville^  Oliio. 


11 


mence  at  ten  o'clock.  It  is  also  usual  to  pause  till  the  meet- 
ing becomes  settled,  at  which  time,  the  clerk  of  the  preceding 
year  reads  an  opening  minute,  the  same  as  is  here — "  at  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting;"  and  then  proceeds  to  call  over  the  represen- 
tatives, and  to  minute  their  attendance  or  absence.  It  is  like- 
wise usual  for  those  who  are  absent,  to  send  reasons  for  their 
absence,  which  are  read,  and  notice  taken  of  the  same  upon 
the  minutes;  after  which,  it  is  understood  the  meeting  is  or- 
ganized for  the  transaction  of  business. 

The  meeting  commenced  at  the  time,  as  is  usual.  On  such 
occasions  they  frequently  come  together  considerably  before 
the  hour  appointed  for  meeting.  On  that  day  the  weather  was 
inclement,  and  a  considerable  crowd  had  collected  around  the 
house  before  the  doors  were  opened.  They  were  opened,  by 
my  time,  about  three-quarters  before  ten,  and  the  assemblage 
continued  till  the  house  was  filled,  the  lower  part  particularly. 

After  the  lower  part  had  become  filled,  there  were  a  con- 
siderable number  of  persons  standing  in  the  passages,  though 
considerable  room  was  yet  vacant  in  the  upper  galleries.  A 
minister  present  engaged  in  vocal  supplication,  and  conside- 
rable stillness  spread  over  the  meeting,  though  there  had  been 
some  agitation  previous.  After  this  individual  was  engaged 
in  supplication,  a  number  of  persons  came  into  meeting,  in 
what  I  considered  a  disorderly  manner,  and  persons  whom  we 
considered  not  privileged  to  enter.  There  were  some  from 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  who,  we  understood, 
had  been  disowned  by  the  society  where  they  reside,  and  who 
had,  of  course,  no  right  to  enter  the  meeting.  This  created 
some  disturbance. 

But  as  soon  as  a  little  stillness  was  obtained,  Jonathan  Tay- 
lor, who  was  clerk  last  year,  and  to  whom  it  belonged  to  open 
this  year,  being  at  the  table,  began  to  prepare,  to  open  the 
meeting.  Whether  he  had  formed  the  minute  before,  or  not, 
I  do  not  know,  but  he  was  opening  the  papers  in  order  to  call 
the  representatives.  Israel  French  observed,  that  it  devolved 
on  him  to  state  to  the  meeting,  that  since,  or  words  to  this 
effect — since  last  year,  our  clerk  had  become  disqualified  for 
opening  the  meeting,  by  trampling  the  discipline  under  foot. 
He  made  some  additional  remarks,  but  his  voice  was  so  feeble, 
that  I  could  not  distinctly  understand;  but  he  went  on  to  pro- 
pose that  another  be  appointed  in  his  stead.  He  stated  no 
particulars  in  which  the  clerk  had  violated  the  discipline. 
Jonathan  Taylor  was  at  this  time  engaged  in  arranging  the 
papers  to  open  the  meeting,  when  a  number  of  voices  express- 
ed, in  a  very  unusual  manner,  their  concurrence;  a  very  con- 
siderable number  at  once.  From  the  clamour,  it  was  difficult 
to  say  what  it  was — I  understood  it  to  be  an  expression  of 
concurrence,  but  it  was  diflicult  to  say.     From  the  sound  of 


Trial  of  Friends 


voice  as  it  struck  my  ear,  1  thought  a  number  of  persoufs 
spoke  in  rapid  succession. 

Several  Friends  objected  to  this  proceeding,  as  being  dis- 
orderly. But  David  Hilles'  name  was  mentioned  in  very  quick 
succession  after  this  burst  of  voices,  and  some  other  person 
was  named  as  an  assistant,  but  I  do  not  know  who  named  ihem. 

The  clerk,  Jonathan  Taylor,  proceeded  to  read  the  opening 
minute,  (though  there  was  considerable  interruption  while  he 
was  reading)  and  to  call  the  representatives  from  the  Quarter- 
ly Meetings,  I  think,  in  number  62.  Fifty-seven  of  the  repre- 
sentatives answered  to  their  names,  and  reasons  were  received 
for  the  absence  of  two.  It  is  usual  in  our  meetings,  for  the 
meeting  to  be  opened  and  organized,  before  it  is  understood 
that  any  subject  is  open  for  discussion,  in  any  matter  of  dis- 
pute, or  any  thing  in  which  it  is  probable  there  will  be  a  con- 
trariety of  opinions.  It  is  understood  that  meetings  of  busi- 
ness are  opened  by  the  clerk. 

I  have  known  instances  in  which  messages  have  been  re- 
ceived from  the  women's  meeting,  informing  of  a  prospect  or 
wish  that  a  female  may  have,  to  visit  the  men's  meeting.  And 
it  is  the  uniform  practice  for  the  clerk  to  open  the  meeting 
before  the  subject  is  open  for  discussion. 

A  number  of  individuals,  I  cannot  say  how  many,  expressed 
their  disapprobation,  stating,  that  it  was  out  of  order.  The 
assistant  clerk  had  probably  proceeded  so  far  as  to  read  the 
heading  of  the  several  reports,  when  the  meeting  was  thrown 
into  such  a  situation  as  totally  to  disturb  the  business.  Fre- 
quent and  loud  calls  were  made  on  David  Hilled  to  go  to  the 
table,  and  a  number  of  persons  raised  themselves  upon  the 
benches,  and  some  upon  the  backs  of  the  benches.  Some 
cried  out.  Friends,  will  you  suffer  your  clerk  to  be  kept  from 
the  table?  thus  urging  Friends  to  make  way  for  him  in  a  loud 
and  boisterous  manner;  frequently  many  speaking  at  the  same 
time — it  was  with  great  disorder,  by  which  the  clerks  were 
prevented  from  proceeding.  (Here,  at. the  suggestion  of  the 
judge,  witness  described  the  situation  of  the  raised  seats, 
ministers'  gallery,  8cc.)  Members  called  out  indifferent  lan- 
guage, and  one  person  being  raised  upon  the  bench,  was  en- 
gaged in  earnestly  exhorting  those  to  whom  he  addressed  him- 
self— Friends,  will  you  suffer  your  clerk  to  be  kept  from  the 
table?  and  this  was  a  disowned  person,  who  had  no  right  to  be 
in  the  meeting. 

At  this  time  there  was  a  great  deal  of  moving  about  in  the 
meeting  house.  I  saw  a  number  moving  backward  and  for- 
ward in  the  crowd,  and  a  large  proportion  of  those  in  the  house 
had  raised  upon  their  feet,  and  many  on  the  benches.  I  saw 
Israel  French  going  from  the  position  which  he  occupied  when 
he  made  the  proposition,  towai'ds  the  back  part  of  the  house. 


.41 


at  Steubenvilte,  Ohio. 


Vi 


I  saw  him  pressing- through  the  crowd,  and  returning  towards 
the  gallery;  and  a  number  of  persons  pressed  on  towards  the 
clerk's  table. 

I  think  there  are  three  ranges  of  benches  rising  in  regular  gra- 
dation from  the  floor  to  the  upper  seat  of  the  ministers'  galle- 
ry. Those  who  occupy  these  seats  face  the  great  body  of  the 
meeting,  and  these  seats  were  closely  filled,  and  also  the  steps 
leading  up  to  the  clerk's  table  were  closely  filled  with  persons 
sitting  upon  them.  The  clerk's  table  stands  at  the  upper  end 
of  these  steps  in  the  ministers'  gallery.  Near  the  commence- 
ment of  these  steps  from  the  floor,  stands  a  large  stove,  in 
the  middle  ile,  leading  up  to  the  clerk's  table.  There  are 
folding  doors  at  the  back  of  the  clerks.  A  number  of  persons 
proceeded  on  towards  the  clerk's  table,  but  Friends  who  were 
in  their  seats  were  not  disposed  to  make  v/ay  for  them,  and 
kept  their  places;  and  as  the  others  pressed  on,  pretty  gene- 
rally, those  who  occupied  these  seats  rose  upon  their  feet. 
The  pressure  soon  became  violent,  but  I  frequently  heard  per- 
sons exclaim,  "  don't  use  violence,"  and  several  stated  that  they 
were  hurt.  I  saw  a  stout  young  man  spring  upon  the  heads 
of  Friends  who  faced  the  meeting.  I  saw  him  erect  above  the 
crowd,  but  he  soon  lost  his  balance,  and  fell  back,  and  his 
friends  rushed  on. 

One  young  man  raised  himself  upon  the  stove,  and  pro- 
claimed that  the  God  of  love  had  left  the  gallery,  and  the  god 
of  mammon  had  taken  his  place;  and  also  added  something 
about  taking  the  clerks  to  the  table.  The  parties  pressing  to- 
ward the  table,  had  made  their  way,  perhaps  half  the  distance 
from  the  floor  to  the  table,  when  a  suspension  took  place, 
during  which  the  assistant  clerk  called  over  the  names  of  a 
number  of  persons,  and  on  calling  them  by  name,  desired  them 
to  leave  the  house  as  disorderly  persons.  There  was  consi- 
derable remonstrance  against  the  proceedings  during  this  sus- 
pension of  the  bustle.  But  I  heard  it  said  in  the  crowd,  they 
have  had  time  to  surrender,  it  is  time  to  press  on,  or  some- 
thing to  this  effect,  and  a  violent  pressure  was  made. 

In  the  early  part  of  this  suspension,  an  individual  in  the 
youths'  gallery,  facing  where  I  sat,  near  the  clerk's  table,  ob- 
served, that  those  persons  who  occupied  the  gallery  over  the 
ministers,  or  the  persons  sitting  in  the  ministers'  gallery,  had 
better  move,  as  the  gallery  was  so  loaded  that  it  might  fall. 
Some  who  sat  near  me  were  apprehensive  of  danger,  but  look- 
ing up,  saw  no  cause  of  alarm,  and  were  quieted.  A  few  mi- 
nutes after,  it  was  pronounced  that  it  was  time  to  surrender, 
and  the  word  was  given,  press  on,  and  an  alarm  was  given 
that  the  galleries  were  coming  down,  the  house  was  fall- 
ing. It  was  reiterated  with  great  vehemence,  and  created 
great  alarm  and  consternation,  and  those  who  occupied  the 
2 


14 


Trial  (if  F riends 


seats  under  lliis  sound-board  very  i^enerally  It'l'l  their  places- 
1  rose  upon  my  feet  at  the  time,  but  immediately  looked  up^ 
and  discovering  no  occasion  for  alarm,  it  instantly  occurred 
to  me  that  it  was  a  stratagem.  It  produced  dreadful  conster- 
nation, and  a  general  rush,  in  which  the  noise  might  be  a  lit- 
tle compared  to  thunder.  I  heard  a  number  scream,  and 
distinctly  heard  persons  shout. 

At  this  juncture,  I  heard  it  pronounced  in  the  crowd,  "now 
is  the  time,  rush  on."  A  number  of  persons  did  press  through 
with  great  violence.  I  saw  Isaac  James  between  the  two  upper 
rails,  within  one  bench  of  the  ministers'  gallery,  struggling 
with  great  violence  in  the  crowd.  I  saw  him  in  the  attitude 
of  having  his  shoulder  against  some  Friends,  who  were  in  his 
Tvay,  and  from  his  position  I  concluded  be  had  his  feet  against 
the  bench  below  him;  and  he  was  struggling  with  great  vio- 
lence in  that  position.  I  saw  him  afterwards  making  his  way 
round  the  clerk's  table,  where  the  clerks  usually  sit.  The 
struggling  was  to  get  forward  to  the  clerk's  table.  He  gained 
his  entrance  at  the  opposite  end  of  the  table  from  where  I 
was.  I  had  taken  my  seat  by  the  clerk,  and  as  he  was  passing 
round  the  table,  I  heard  him  say,  that  he  had  used  no  violence; 
but  he  was  much  out  of  breath.  His  breathing  was  very 
much  exhausted. 

I  saw  in  the  ministers'  gallery,  but  how  he  got  there  I  did 
not  sec,  the  young  man  who  mounted  upon  Friends'  heads,  and 
a  number  of  others,  who  came  and  laid  hands  on  the  clerk's 
tal)le,  to  remove  it,  as  appeared  to  me.  One  threw  open  the 
door,  a  number  laid  hold  to  remove  the  table,  and  a  number 
look  hold  to  jirevent  its  being  moved.  I  do  not  recollect  see- 
ing James  take  hold  of  the  table.  The  persons  who  had  forced 
their  way  to  the  table,  as  I  have  mentioned,  made  another 
pause  for  a  few  minutes.  During  this  time,  a  young  man  came 
over  from  where  the  clerks  had  been  sitting,  but  who  were 
displaced.  I  was  at  the  time  sitting,  having  been  pushed  out 
of  my  seat,  near  my  original  seat:  he  came  very  deliberately 
over  the  elbow  of  the  ministers'  seat,  and  took  his  position  at 
the  end  of  the  table.  He  very  deliberately  fixed  himself  hold 
of  the  table,  and  whether  at  a  concerted  signal,  I  cannot  tell, 
but  a  simultaneous  movement  took  place  to  remove  the  table. 
An  individual  near  me  observed,  that  Jonathan  Taylor  was 
crushed  against  the  house;  he  gave  notice  that  they  were  hurt- 
ing Jonathan  Taylor,  and  it  was  repeated  several  times;  but 
the  attempt  to  remove  the  table  continued.  This  young  man 
was  using  great  exertion  to  press  the  table  in  that  direction. 
The  individual  who  gave  this  alarm  of  injury  to  the  clerk^ 
stated  that  Jonathan  Taylor  would  be  killed  unless  they  de- 
sisted. 

I  was  still  sitting  near,  and  apprehending  that  the  life  of  a> 


at  I'iieubeiiville,  Ohio. 


15 


valuable  IVierKl  was  in  danger,  I  caughl  hold  of  tlie  arm  of  the 
young  man,  and  told  him  if  he  did  murder,  he  would  be  ac- 
countable for  it;  and  pronouncing  the  word  murder  with  a 
strong  voice,  there  was  a  relaxation.  I  understood  at  the  in- 
terval, Jonathan  Taylor  was  released,  having  been  seriously 
injured,  and  crushed  against  the  house.  In  a  few  moments 
the  table  was  crushed  to  pieces.  I  think  Taylor  was  assisted  to 
extricate  himself. 

Very  soon  after  the  table  was  torn  to  pieces,  a  shout  was 
raised  near  it,  on  the  opposite  side  from  where  I  was,  Huzza 
for  Jackson. 

I  saw  David  Hilles  standing  on  the  seat  in  the  ministers' 
gallery  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  door  from  where  I  was.  It 
was  proposed  that  he  should  proceed.  I  heard  him  read  a 
minute.  The  table  was  broken  entirely  to  pieces.  He  pro- 
ceeded to  read  "At  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,"  and  mentioned 
the  date.  I  did  not  see  him  write  it.  I  heard  him  also  calling 
the  names  of  persons  as  representatives  I  suppose.  Eight  of 
them  were  the  same  as  those  called  by  Jonathan  Taylor— I 
don't  know  of  any  more. 

Did  they  answer  to  both  calls?  I  think  that  five  of  them  an- 
swered to  Jonathan  Taylor;  and  I  believe  that  three  answered 
to  David  Hilles  who  had  not  answered  to  Taylor,  and  I  am  not 
very  certain  but  a  fourth  answered  Hilles  who  had  answered 
to  Taylor. 

In  a  short  time  after  this,  a  Friend  adverting  to  the  extraor- 
dinary proceedings  which  had  taken  place,  proposed  that  the 
meeting  should  adjourn.  Several  persons  expressed  a  concur- 
rence with  the  proposition,  and  it  was  proposed  that  the 
representatives  should  be  called  to  express  their  assent  or  dis- 
sent to  the  adjournment.  Their  names  were  called.  They 
were  generally  still  present  though  some  did  not  answer,  hav- 
ing as  was  supposed  left  Ihe  house  during  the  tumult.  Those 
who  did  answer  I  think  all  expressed  their  concurrence  with 
the  adjournment.  I  should  consider  that  something  like  four 
or  five  might  have  been  absent;  the  proportion  was  inconsi- 
derable. I  should  suppose  that  something  like  fifty  answered. 
Were  they  in  favour  or  against  the  adjournment.^  All  in  favour 
as  far  as  I  recollect.  It  was  concluded  to  adjourn  till  10 
o'clock  the  next  morning.  Who  was  the  one  who  acted  in  this 
measure?  Both  the  clerk  and  the  assistant  clerk.  Information 
of  this  conclusion  to  adjourn,  was  sent  to  the  women's  meeting. 
The  objection  to  the  adjournment  was  very  inconsiderable; 
there  might  have  been  objections  made  by  a  few,  but  none  by 
the  representatives,  and  the  meeting  adjourned. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  of  ministers  and  elders  had  met  on  the 
Seventh-day  preceding,  and  had  adjourned  till  8  o'clock  on 
Third-day  morning  the  9th  instant. 


16 


Trial  nf  Friends 


About  tlic  time  to  whicli  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  ttiinisters 
and  elders  had  adjourned,  I  went  with  others,  and  found  the 
doors  closed.  At  one  of  the  doors  a  demand  was  made  to 
know  who  we  were.  We  informed  them  that  we  wanted  the 
use  of  the  house  for  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  ministers  and 
elders.  We  were  informed  from  within  that  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting  had  adjourned  till  9  o'clock,  till  which  time,  the 
house  would  be  kept  shut.  We  accordingly  left  the  ground 
without  any  further  discussion  on  the  subject. 

At  10  o'clock,  Friends  again  met  on  the  ground  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  that  is,  those  with  whom  I  associate;  and  a 
Friend  who  had  been  particularly  intrusted  with  the  care  of  the 
house  by  Friends  for  the  time,  and  myself,  with  another  repre- 
sentative, went  into  the  house,  so  far  only  as  to  be  distinctly 
heard.  At  this  time  David  Hilles  was  at  a  table  where  the 
clerk's  table  usually  stands,  and  acting,  as  I  understood,  as 
clerk  for  those  that  were  met.  A  demand  was  made  in  the  name 
of  the  trustees,  and  on  behalf  of  the  representatives,  for  the 
house,  to  hold  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  in;  by  James  Heald,  in 
the  first  place,  in  the  name  of  the  trustees,  and  I,  in  the  next 
place,  on  behalf  of  the  representatives.  I  was  one  of  them. 
Friends  were  kept  out  of  the  house,  for  the  residue  of  the  ternn. 

It  was  mentioned  that  a  paper  which  had  just  been  made, 
should  be  read  as  a  reply  to  this  demand.  It  was  read,  but  I 
did  not  attend  a  great  deal  to  it,  because  it  was  the  house,  not 
a  paper,  that  we  wanted.  I  understood  it  to  be  some  report 
that  had  been  drawn  up,  proposing  a  compromise,  and  which 
has  since  appeared  in  the  newspapers.  I  repeated  the  demand 
several  times  to  bring  their  attention  to  the  point,  that  it  was 
not  a  paper,  but  the  house  that  we  demanded.  They  gave  in- 
direct and  evasive  answers.  One  individual,  who  sat  in  the 
ministers'  gallery,  observed,  that  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  was 
then  sitting,  and  did  not  wish  to  be  disturbed.  One  or  two  of 
their  number  brought  the  paper,  and  handed  it  to  me.  I  told 
them  it  was  the  house  we  wanted,  and  not  the  paper;  for  Friends 
were  then  in  the  yard.  They  said  there  was  no  other  reply, 
and  the  clerk  must  go  on  with  the  business;  David  Hilles  ac- 
cordingly went  to  looking  over  the  papers  then  before  him. 

I  informed  those  in  the  house  that  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting 
would  be  opened  in  the  yard;  the  women's  meeting  in  the  west 
end,  and  the  men's  in  the  east:  and  we  withdrew.  The  meet- 
ing was  accordingly  opened  in  the  yard,  without  seats  to  sit 
on,  Friends  generally  standing,  except  a  few  on  the  fences. 
At  which  time,  as  usual,  the  representatives  reported  that 
they  had  conferred  together,  and  agreed  to  propose  me  as 
clerk,  and  the  former  as  assistant,  to  be  appointed. 

The  meeting  was  opened  by  the  assistant  clerk,  Jonathan 
Taylor  being  disabled  fron\  performing  that  duly  by  the  injury 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


17 


he  Iiad  sustained  the  day  before.  Tlie  representatives  were 
generally  in  the  yard,  waiting  for  entrance,  when  the  meeting 
opened  in  the  yard.  I  would  say,  that  fifty-seven  were  present, 
the  number  that  first  answered;  they  were  not  called,  so  that 
I  cannot  say  positively. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — Was  the  proposition  to  appoint 
David  Hilles  clerk,  in  the  usual  form.^  I  consider  that  it  was 
not.  I  understand  you  to  say,  that  the  meeting,  as  such,  did 
not  act  on  this  proposition,  but  that  those  only  who  formed 
the  separate  meeting  acted  on  it?  That  was  the  case.  Was 
this  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends  a  religious  meeting?  It 
was;  and  it  was  generally  considered  a  highly  disorderly 
movement — it  was  disorderly  as  to  the  time. 

The  usual  course  is  for  the  representatives  to  confer  to- 
gether, between  the  first  and  second  sitting,  and  propose  to 
the  second  sitting  a  person  for  clerk;  and  a  clerk  is  appointed 
on  Third-day  morning,  which  is  the  second  day  of  the  sit- 
ting. And  it  is  understood,  that  he  holds  his  office  till  the 
same  time  the  next  year.  [See  page  97  of  the  discipline.] 
How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends? 
I  had  a  birth-right,  my  parents  were  members;  and  my  im- 
pression was,  that  that  meeting  was  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Ohio.  There  are  five  Quarterly  Meetings,  Redstone,  Short 
Creek,  Salem,  Stillwater,  and  New  Garden. 

Does  every  member  in  your  meetings  have  a  voice?  The 
practice  is,  for  Quarterly  Meetings  to  send  representatives  to 
the  Yearly  Meeting;  but  every  member,  not  under  dealing,  to 
use  a  phrase  of  the  society,  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  is  understood  as  having  a  right  to  sit;  and 
those,  also,  who  come  from  within  the  limits  of  other  Yearly 
Meetings,  producing  satisfactory  credentials  of  fair  standing 
in  society,  have  their  rights  acknowledged  in  these  meetings, 
and  all  other  meetings  of  discipline  in  the  society.  Have 
those  persons  who  are  permitted  to  visit,  a  right  to  vote?  It 
is  understood  that  all  persons  privileged  to  sit  in  these  meet- 
ings, are  privileged  to  express  their  sentiments  in  these  meet- 
ings. We  never  vote  on  any  occasion;  but  I  consider  that  the 
society  has,  heretofore,  been  favoured  with  so  much  unanimity 
as  to  get  along  without  any  serious  difficulty,  in  deciding  what 
was  the  judgment  of  the  meeting.  But  I  consider,  that  the 
representatives  do  substantially  constitute  the  Yearly  Meeting 
in  its  official  capacity. 

I  consider  that  if  the  representatives  were  to  attend,  and  no 
other  persons,  it  would  be  a  Yearly  Meeting.  And  further,  if 
no  representatives  were  to  attend,  no  assemblage  of  persons 
within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  could  con- 
stitute a  Yearly  Meeting.  It  is  recpiired,  that  it  shall  be 
known  thry  arc  present;  and  they  arc  called,  and  required  not 


18 


Trial  of  Friends 


xo  withdraw  without  leave.  The  discipline  says  nothing 
about  how  many  sliould  constitute  a  quorum  for  business. 

The  society  existed  for  several  years  without  any  system 
of  church  government;  I  think  till  the  year  1672.  The  minis- 
ters who  had  been  active  agents  in  propagating  the  doctrines 
of  the  society,  gathered  them  into  a  distinct  form.  They  had 
in  a  collective  capacity  held  an  annual  meeting,  it  appears,  for 
several  years,  to  take  care  of  the  various  concerns  of  the  so- 
ciety. And  it  was  proposed,  I  think  in  the  year  1672,  that 
the  Quarterly  Meetings  ^ould  appoint  representatives  to  con- 
stitute a  Yearly  Meeting.  It  was  discontinued,  however,  till 
probably  the  year  1677. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  in  its  first  institution  was  constituted 
of  representatives;  and  in  their  first  constitution.  Quarterly 
Meetings  were  also  understood  as  constituted  of  representa- 
tives from  Monthly  Meetings,  below  which,  the  representative 
system  was  not  brought  into  operation.  The  practice  of  ap- 
pointing representatives  from  Monthly  to  Quarterly,  and  from 
Quarterly  to  Yearly  Meetings,  has  continued,  so  far  as  my 
knowledge  goes,  down  to  the  present  time. 

When  David  Hilles  was  called  on  to  go  to  the  table,  what 
was  done.^  A  number  of  persons  called  out  for  our  clerk  to  go 
to  the  table,  as  theij  called  it:  during  this  time,  Jonathan  Tay- 
lor was  going  on  with  the  business.  Did  you  take  notice  of 
the  number  who  remained  in  the  house?  On  Third-day,  when 
the  demand  was  made  for  the  house,  near  two  of  the  doors 
there  was  a  considerable  crowd  that  pressed  in,  some  of  whom 
I  knew  were  Friends,  and  I  knew  some  that  were  not  members 
of  society,  in  that  part  of  the  house.  I  should  judge  that 
there  were  something  like  two  hundred  persons,  and  probably 
about  eight  hundred  in  the  yard.  There  might  have  been  u 
number  of  those  about  the  doors,  who  acted  in  concert  with 
the  meeting  then  going  on.  I  should  suppose  that  those  who 
continued  to  act  with  David  Hilles,  were  about  one-fourth. 

Cross-examination  by  defendants'  counsel. — Until  two  years 
past  the  society  was  composed  of  a  number  of  persons,  who 
are  now  divided  into  two  parties,  was  it  not.^  Taking  the  fact 
of  the  meeting — (Counsel.  W ell,  they  are  facts,  that  we  want. ) 
in  point  of  fact,  a  number  of  persons  during  the  last  Yearly 
Meeting  did  combine  to  hold  a  Yearly  Meeting,  separate  from 
the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio;  and  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting 
continued  to  hold  its  sittings  after  those  persons  had  adjourn- 
ed. We  want  to  know,  whether  the  persons  constituting  this 
meeting,  who  continued  to  act  with  David  Hilles,  were  a  year 
ago  members  of  the  society  of  Friends?  I  think  thci  e  were, 
on  Third-day,  some  in  the  meeting,  who  were  not  members  of 
the  society  of  Friends.  Was  David  Hilles  there  on  Second- 
day?    He  was;  he  was  there  as  a  very  unruly  person.  When 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  is  assembled  for  business,  have  not  aU 
the  members  an  equal  voice  in  the  meeting?  That  would  lead 
to  a  more  extensive  answer.  There  is  no  prohibition  from 
expressing  a  sentiment  in  the  meeting.  Then  in  that  meeting 
you  are  what  may  be  termed  a  democracy?  No,  we  are  a  re- 
presentative society.  Has  the  person  who  is  a  representative 
any  more  weight  than  one  who  is  not  a  representative?  As 
to  the  weight,  it  would  be  difficult  to  answer.  Some  are  re- 
presentatives, and  some  are  not,  and  is  there  a  distinction  in 
these  in  their  vote  or  voice  in  the  meeting?  We  never 
vote;  we  express  our  sentiments.  Does  the  opinion  of  a  re- 
presentative weigh  more  than  that  of  another  member?  It 
weighs  what  it  is  worlh;  and  so  with  the  opinion  of  every 
member  of  the  society,  it  weighs  what  it  is  worth.  An  ex- 
pression of  sentiment  is  estimated  by  what  it  contains  orcon- 
veysj  there  is  no  inequality  as  to  what  the  meeting  consider 
the  right  of  individual  members  to  express  their  sentiments. 
As  to  the  general  estimate,  the  clerk,  it  is  understood,  is  to 
collect  and  record  what  he  understands,  to  be  the  prevailing 
sense  of  the  meeting.  It  amounts,  in  substance,  to  what  in 
other  meetings  would  be  determined  by  a  chairman  or  presi- 
dent. We  do  not  vote,  when  assembled  in  a  Yearly  Meeting, 
consisting  of  representatives  and  others.  Is  there  any  eccle- 
siastical power  over  that  meeting,  superior  to  the  power  of 
the  meeting  itself?  Yearly  Meetings  are  understood,  in  a  qua- 
lified sense,  to  be  independent  bodies.  They  have  a  right  to 
adopt  rules  and  regulations  operating  within  their  own  terri- 
torial limits.  When  the  members  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting 
have  met,  is  there  any  other  body  of  men  on  earth  that  has 
control  over  them?  There  is,  in  one  point  of  view.  These 
different  meetings,  though  acting  in  a  judicial  and  legislative 
capacity,  and  having  complete  power  so  to  do,  are  still  un- 
derstood as  parts  of  one  society,  embracing  all  other  Yearly 
Meetings;  and  the  members  of  one  of  these  possess  rights  in 
all,  on  certain  conditions,  and  these  are  known  and  recognised 
by  each  other;  and  upon  the  understanding  of  being  parts  of 
the  whole,  the  members  of  each  enjoy  privileges  in  all. 
Should  any  one  of  the  Yearly  Meetings,  in  the  exercise  of  its 
official  character  and  power,  adopt  principles  of  faith  or 
church  government,  incompatible  with  those  which  have  been 
adopted  by  the  society  at  large,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  break 
the  bond  of  christian  fellowship.  The  fact  would  be  declared 
by  the  other  Yearly  Meetings,  and  they  would  stand  separated 
from  the  body,  and  of  course  the  members  could  not  enjoy 
their  former  privileges: — in  that  sense,  they  arc  not  absolute- 
ly independent  bodies.  As  far  as  their  ow.i  members  and 
business  extend,  there  is  no  rule  of  discipline  binding  on  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting,  unless  adopted   by  that   meeting?  No, 


20 


Trial  of  Friends 


When  a  question  is  raised  in  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  with 
regard  to  any  of  its  oflicers,  or  any  thing  which  concerns  thai 
meeting,  is  not  the  decision  of  the  question  exclusively  in  the 
power  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  when  assembled?  Yes.  Yet 
the  Yearly  Meeting,  though  in  itself  it  may  be  understood  as 
a  legislative  body,  is  subject  to  some  rules  and  regulations, 
that  operate  upon  its  members  and  upon  the  body  collectively, 
unless  the  meeting  should  change  their  usages. 

You  have  stated,  that  your  society  is  composed  of  five 
Quarterly  Meetings.  Is  it  not  a  fact,  within  your  knowledge, 
that  four  of  these  meetings  are  divided,  and  that  they  chose 
two  sets  of  representatives  to  the  last  Yearly  Meeting?  With 
respect  to  what  may  be  properly  withifc  my  knowledge,  I  know 
of  only  one  division  of  a  Quarterly  Meeting.  Do  you  not 
know  that  there  has  been  such  a  division?  In  the  Quarterly 
Meeting  to  which  I  belong,  after  the  regular  clerk  had  open- 
ed the  meeting,  and  called  the  representatives,  the  clerk  stated 
that  there  were  a  number  present  who  had  been  disowned, 
and  some  objections  were  raised  to  going  on  with  the  business 
of  the  meeting.  A  number  of  disowned  persons  who  were 
there,  proposed  holding  a  Quarterly  Meeting,  and  when  they 
withdrew,  a  number,  who  were  not  disowned,  withdrew  with 
them.  Does  the  majority  usually  disown,  or  the  minority? 
In  some  cases  a  minority  may  do  it.  If  a  meeting  be  compos- 
ed of  fifty  members,  is  it  in  the  power  of  ten  to  clisown  forty? 
Yes.  Is  it  in  the  power  of  three  to  disown  forty-seven?  Yes; 
a  very  small  number  may  do  it.  In  relation  to  the  two  sets  of 
representatives,  you  only  know,  as  it  respects  Short  Creek? 
I  heard  David  Hilles  calling  names.  But  you  do  not  re- 
member whether  they  were  from  all  the  five  Quarterly  Meet- 
ings? I  cannot  tell.  Do  you  not  know,  that  there  was  a  dou- 
ble set  of  representatives?  I  do  not  positively;  but  I  believe 
there  was,  that  is,  of  those  whom  they  call  representatives. 
Which  of  these  were  the  proper  representatives  to  appear  in 
the  meeting?  One  set  was  called  by  Mr.  Taylor,  and  the  other 
by  David  Hilles,  and  both  claim  to  be  legal  representatives. 
Who  could  determine  this  question? — was  there  any  other 
authority  but  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  do  not  know  that  I  am 
prepared  to  answer  that  question,  as  to  the  fact  stated,  because 
I  am  not  the  proper  person.  Nothing  was  said  as  to  two  sets 
of  representatives?  I  heard  no  such  fact  stated  in  that  meet- 
ing. 

Suppose  a  Quarterly  Meeting  should  divide,  and  choose 
two  sets  of  representatives,  and  they  should  come  forward  to 
the  Yearly  Meeting,  would  it  not  be  the  business  of  that  meet- 
ing to  decide,  which  was  legal,  and  which  not?  I  suppose  it 
would  be  the  duty  of  the  clerk,  to  respect  those,  whose  names 
were  placed  in  his  hands  according  to  discipline.  Suppose 


ut  StCuLe/iville,  Ohio. 


2J 


the  representatives  from  a  Quarterly  Meeliiig  should  both 
place  their  reports  in  the  hands  of  the  clerk,  at  a  proper  time, 
and  in  a  proper  manner — whose  duly  would  it  be  to  determine? 
It  is  a  question  which  has  never  occurred.  Would  it  not  be 
a  question  to  be  decided  by  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  by  them 
alone?  I  have  never  known  such  an  instance.  Have  you  any 
other  tribunal  that  could  decide  it,  but  the  Yearly  Meeting? 
None,  that  I  know  of. 

Were  reports  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Taylor,  from  all  the 
Quarterly  Meetings?  He  can  answer  better  than  I  can.  Do 
you  know  the  fact?  I  do  not.  Did  he  receive  the  report 
from  the  Redstone  Quarterly  fvleeting?  It  is  here,  and  it  is 
signed  by  the  assistant  clerk.  It  was  mentioned  at  the  time, 
that  the  report  from  Redstone  had  been  handed  in  by  the  as- 
sistant clerk.  The  other  signed  by  the  clerk,  was  not  present- 
ed. The  assistant  clerk,  and  the  clerk  also,  were  representa- 
tives from  Redstone,  but  the  clerk  did  not  hand  in  the  report 
to  the  clerk  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  nor  answer  to  his  name. 

Previous  to  this  meeting,  had  not  Friends  with  whom  you 
act,  appointed  some  persons  to  keep  the  doors  shut,  and  to 
exclude  certain  Friends  from  coming  into  the  house?  It  has 
been  the  practice  for  a  number  of  years.  I  ask  whether  per- 
sons were  not  appointed  to  keep  the  meeting-house  and  guard 
the  doors?  The  Yearly  Meeting  did  not — the  trustees  of  the 
property,  apprehending  injury  to  the  property,  had  placed 
persons  there  to  take  care  of  it,  I  think  on  Seventh-day,  and 
to  be  in  the  house.  It  was  not  understood  that  the  meeting 
would  convene  in  the  night,  and  they  staid  there  to  prevent 
injury.  The  Quarters  had  appointed  persons  to  keep  out,  if 
they  could,  by  any  moderate  means,  persons  disowned,  and 
those  under  dealing,  but  not  to  exclude  any  individuals  who 
had  a  right,  by  the  discipline,  to  attend.  What  Quarters  ap- 
pointed these  door-keepers?  I  have  not  seen  any  official  state- 
ment, but  believe  all  did  except  Redstone.  I  do  not  know 
how  many  Short  Creek  appointed,  nor  how  many  acted  at  the 
meeting.  When  did  the  meeting  assembler  Ten  o'clock  was 
the  time  appointed,  but  people  assembled  earlier.  Were  any 
excluded  who  were  members  of  the  society?  None  that  I 
know  of.  How  many  guards  were  stationed  at  the  doors?  I 
do  not  know.  Were  any  members  excluded?  I  believe  none 
that  had  a  right  to  enter.  Did  you  ever  know  such  door- 
keepers appointed  before?  Yes,  Short  Creek  has  frequently 
done  it.  Has  any  body  ever  been  refused  admission,  till  this 
year,  or  have  you  ever  before  known  any  persons  coming  into 
meeting,  to  be  pushed  back?  Not  that  I  know  of — I  never 
knew  any  body  to  intrude  or  force  in,  when  they  had  no  right. 
Was  it  not  the  duty  of  the  door-keepers,  to  exclude  all  those 
who  were  representatives,  as  well  as  members,  not  on  your 


Trial  of  FrienJs 


silk  ol'  tlie  question?  It  was  their  duty,  only  to  exclude  tlio3e 
who  were  under  dealing,  or  disowned.  Such  an  idea  as  ex- 
cluding those  who  did  riot  unite  with  us,  never  entered  the 
mind  of  any  of  us.  When  Mr.  French  made  his  proposition, 
had  the  meeting  proceeded  at  all  in  business?  No.  Jonathan 
Taylor  was  opening  the  books.  Was  not  his  proposition 
pretty  universally  agreed  to?  A  number  of  persons  in  a  burst 
of  exclamation,  appeared  to  approve.  Was  not  the  voice  of 
the  meeting,  strongly  in  favour  of  the  measure?  Yes,  if  we 
judge  by  the  noise.  How  do  you  judge  but  by  the  noise  of 
different  voices?  By  the  deliberate  and  audible  manner.  If 
they  speak  together,  it  is  disorderly.  If  the  greater  voice 
appears  to  be  in  favour  of  the  measure,  is  it  not  carried?  No, 
I  never  knew  a  question  carried  that  way.  Were  there  not 
more  voices  concurring  with  French's  proposition,  than  dis- 
approving? I  cannot  tell,  because  some,  spoke  several  times. 
While  this  was  going  on,  did  not  Taylor  proceed?  He  did; 
he  requested  them  to  be  quiet,  and  many  expressed  their  dis- 
approbation. I  did  not  speak  to  it  myself,  for  the  meeting 
was  not  open,  though  I  most  heartily  disapproved  of  the  whole 
proceeding.  (No  doubt  of  it,  said  the  counsel.)  While  this 
proposition  was  before  the  meeting,  Taylor  proceeded  with 
the  opening  minute,  and  the  assistant  clerk  proceeded  to  call 
the  representatives?  I  think  the  clerk  read  them.  I  do  not 
consider  that  the  meeting  agreed  to  it.  What  number  object- 
ed? I  cannot  tell  the  number,  but  I  think  a  number  expressed 
that  it  was  out  of  order. 

While  this  question  was  before  the  meeting,  and  not  de- 
cided, was  it  according  to  your  mode  of  doing  business,  for 
the  clerk  to  proceed  to  calling  representatives?  It  was  ac- 
cording to  order.  Was  it  in  order  for  the  clerk  to  go  on  with 
his  opening  minute?    It  is  understood  that  if  the  motion 

made  Has  the  clerk  a  veto,  or  is  he  subject  to  the  order 

of  the  meeting?  Yes.  You  state  that  those  seats  near  the 
ministers'  gallery,  were  full  and  crowded?  Yes.  Had  not 
Friends  with  whom  you  act  taken  that  station  previous  to  the 
opening  of  the  doors?  I  don't  know  that  they  had.  When 
the  doors  were  opened,  did  you  not  then  take  those  seats?  A 
number  of  those  seats  were  occupied.  It  is  a  practice  for 
ministers,  elders,  and  representatives,  to  face  the  meeting. 
They  were  not  all  such,  I  suppose?  No,  elderly  Friends  and 
active  members  of  the  society  take  those  seats.  [Here  wit- 
ness expressed  a  desire  to  recapitulate,  for  the  purpose  of  giv- 
ing some  explanation.  J  Before  opening  the  doors  for  general 
admittance,  a  large  committee  who  were  sitting  that  morning, 
at  three-quarters  before  10  o'clock,  concluded  to  adjourn,  that 
the  people  might  come  in.  One  of  the  door-keepers  came  to 
me  and  said,  it  would  be  desirable  that  the  doors  should  be 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


23 


opened,  and  I  think  it  probable  that  those  occupying  these 
seats,  kept  their  places.  Did  not  others  take  them?  I  was 
not  on  them.  It  was  a  rainy  day,  and  I  went  to  a  seat  on  the 
ministers'  gallery,  and  took  a  seat  by  the  clerk.  You  speak 
of  the  alarm  as  being  a  preconcerted  plan;  why  did  you  think 
it  preconcerted?  One  reason  was,  the  intimation  given  that 
the  place  was  likely  to  fall,  while  those  pressing  forward  to 
the  clerk's  table,  by  spreading  it,  created  uneasiness,  as  a  num- 
ber of  Friends  afterwards  said,  they  were  made  uneasy  by  this 
suggestion;  one  reason  further,  was  the  violent  exclamation  of 
those  sitting  opposite,  repeating  vehemently,  the  galleries  are 
coming  down,  the  house  is  falling.  I  further  had  strong 
apprehensions  that  it  was  a  stratagem,  from  the  fact,  that  at 
the  time  those  who  occupied  these  seats  under  this  place,  were 
rushing  out  of  doors,  those  who  were  pressing  their  way  up 
the  steps  over  Friends,  called  out,  now  is  the  time,  rush  on. 
I  know  that  it  was  at  this  time,  that  a  number  of  those  between 
the  body  of  the  meeting  and  the  clerk's  table,  left  their  places, 
and  there  was  a  vacancy  about  the  clerk's  table,  many  were 
thrown  down  and  trampled  on,  and  others  pitched  out  of  the 
door.  I  heard  shouts,  not  of  alarm,  but  of  exultation  and 
to  increase  the  uproar;  I  heard,  now  is  your  time,  rush  on.  I 
do  not  know  whether  by  members  of  the  society  or  not. 

When  Mr.  Hilles  was  brought  forward,  did  not  the  people 
refuse  to  give  way,  and  keep  their  places?  When  the  pres- 
sure was  made  on  tliem,  to  force  through  them,  they  pretty 
generally  rose  on  their  feet.  Did  they  not  push  those  back, 
who  were  approaching?  I  cannot  tell,  I  was  on  the  upper 
seat.  Did  you  not  see  those  Friends,  before  you,  push- 
ing? I  saw  one  elderly  Friend  who  sat  upon  the  steps,  who 
being  rushed  upon  by  a  young  man — I  saw  him  lean  forward 
to  preserve  himself  from  being  overset.  Did  you  not  see  him 
take  hold  with  his  hands?  I  did  not.  Who  was  this  individual? 
I  think  it  was  Benjamin  W.  Ladd.  Would  there  have  been 
any  disturbance,  if  they  had  let  Hilles  come  to  his  place?  I 
think  there  would  have  been  no  violence.  I  think  the  violence 
was  by  pressing  upon  those  who  were  in  the  way,  and  who 
did  not  get  out  of  the  way.  Did  they  not  push  back  towards 
the  stove?  I  saw  no  movement  in  that  way.  As  to  the  table 
you  saw  torn  in  pieces,  who  was  the  person  who  first  took  hold 
of  the  table?  I  don't  know.  When  he  took  hold  to  move  it, 
did  not  the  orthodox  Friends  seize  hold  to  retain  it?  I  think 
not.  Where  were  you?  I  was  within  an  arm's  length  of  it. 
I  did  not  take  hold  that  I  recollect.  It  was  pulled  one  way 
by  those  who  wanted  to  move  it,  and  held  down  by  Friends. 
Do  you  not  know,  that  the  orthodox  Friends  were  those  that 
broke  it,  in  the  first  instance?  I  think  that  Jacob  Richards 
broke  it.    I  saw  him  have  hold  of  it,  and  heard  it  crack,  You 


24 


Trial  of  Friends 


saw  Taylor  injured,  was  he  not  immediately  behind  the  or- 
thodox Friends?  I  believe  that  he  was  within  the  length  of  a 
cane  of  me.  Were  there  any  of  those  persons  on  that  side  of 
the  table?  I  think  Jacob  Richards  was,  he  had  been.  Were 
any  others  there?  Caleb  Cope,  I  think,  was  on  the  opposite 
side.  Were  they  pulling  towards  Taylor,  or  from  him? 
Neither  towards  nor  from  him.  Would  it  have  been  moved 
towards  him,  had  it  not  been  for  the  struggle  of  Friends  to 
retain  the  table?  I  know  that  it  was  taken  hold  of,  previous  to 
Caleb  Cope's  fixing  himself  with  a  steady  press,  and  at  the 
time  that  I  took  hold  of  the  young  man,  and  gave  him  a  pull, 
and  told  him,  that  if  he  did  murder  he  would  be  accountable 
for  it,  I  think  some  said,  take  it  out  of  the  house.  Do  you 
know  which  of  the  orthodox  Friends  had  hold  of  the  table? 

Jacob  was  one,  and  I  think  Joseph  Steer  was  another. 

There  was  a  dense  crowd  on  the  two  sides.  Had  Taylor  hold 
of  the  table?  I  can't  tell,  I  don't  recollect  whether  I  saw  him 
or  not.  After  the  table  was  broken,  there  was  a  pause;  there 
Avasno  other  disturbance.  David  Hilles  went  on  to  read,  but 
we  considered  that  Taylor  was  the  regularly  appointed  clerk. 
Were  you  not  the  regular  clerk?  I  was  appointed  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  meeting,  but  was  ill,  and  he  was  appointed  pro 
fern,  or  during  my  illness.  How  was  that  appointment  made? 
I  was  not  present.  Flow  does  the  minute  say?  Witness  reads 
from  the  book  of  minutes,  "  our  clerk  being  too  much  indis- 
posed, Jonathan  Taylor  is  appointed  in  his  stead."  Are  re- 
presentatives known  as  such,  till  their  names  are  called?  The 
Yearly  Meeting  is  not  considered  as  organized  till  they  are 
called.  Suppose  the  clerk  of  last  year  had  been  dead,  or  that 
Mr.  Taylor  had  been  taken  ill  on  the  morning  of  Second-day, 
so  that  you  had  no  clerk  ?  I  suppose  the  assistant  would  have 
acted.  Well,  if  there  had  been  no  clerk  nor  deputy,  how 
would  you  have  got  along  with  the  business — suppose  both  had 
been  ill,  or  unable  to  attend  on  Second-day  morning;  would  it 
not  have  been  in  the  power  of  the  meeting  to  appoint  a  clerk, 
and  would  not  that  have  preceded  the  calling  of  the  represen- 
tatives? I  snppose  it  would.  Then  the  meeting  could,  under 
certain  circumstances,  proceed  to  the  business  of  appointing 
a  clerk,  without  calling  the  representatives  ?  If  the  clerks  were 
not  present,  none  could  have  been  called.  Suppose  the  clerk 
had  been  disowned  by  his  Monthly  Meeting?  Then  he  would 
have  had  no  right  to  be  present.  And  suppose  there  were  no 
deputy,  could  not  the  meeting  proceed  to  the  election  of  a 
clerk?  I  think  the  meeting  would  name  one,  and  proceed  to 
business. 

Is  it  not  disorderly  to  interrupt  a  minister  in  the  discharge 
of  his  functions?  It  is,  to  interrupt  any  minister  in  unity  with 
the  society,  where  he  is.    Had  not  Mr.  Taylor  interrupted  a 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


25 


minister?  He  did;  and  any  individual  had  a  right  to  interrupt 
Amos  Peaslee.  If  he  had  been  a  regular  minister,  in  good 
standing,  would  it  not  have  been  irregular?  It  would,  if  he  had 
been  introduced  and  his  certificates  received.  I  am  supposing 
that  it  is  a  regular  minister,  and  if  in  that  character,  would 
not  such  an  interruption  be  sufficient  to  disqualify  him;  would 
it  not  be  disorderly?  It  would.  If  Peaslee  were  a  regular 
minister,  then  it  was  disorderly,  and  he  did  publicly  oppose 
him  ?  He  requested  him  to  sit  down.  Previous  to  any  violence 
being  used,  Mr.  Hilles  came  forward  to  the  stove?  I  have  no 
recollection  of  seeing  him  till  I  saw  him  in  the  gallery.  Did 
you  not  see  him  at  the  stove?  I  did  not. 

When  you  came  forward  on  Third-day  morning,  were  you 
not  tpld  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  were  sitting,  and  that  you 
were  at  liberty  to  come  in  and  sit  with  them?  William  B. 
Irish,  I  think,  said  that  we  might  come  and  sit  down  quietly. 
I  shaped  the  inquiry — whether  we  could  come  in  and  hold  the 
Ohio  Yearly  Meeting?  Was  there  any  reason  to  suppose,  that 
you  might  not  have  gone  in  and  occupied  your  seats?  One 
individual  said  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  was  sitting,  and 
wished  not  to  be  disturbed;  another  said,  we  might  sit  down 
quietly,  the  doors  were  open;  but  we  were  not  willing  to  sit 
down  with  them,  as  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting. 

Have  the  trustees,  till  this  year,  ever  shown  any  acts  of 
ownership?  I  don't  recollect.  We  have  considered  the  pro- 
perty, as  built  and  designed  for  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  in  a  col- 
lective capacity. 

Here  the  court  adjourned  till  9  o'clock  next  day. 

Thursday  the  16//«,  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 

The  examination  of  Elisha  Bates  resumed. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan.  I  wish  to  know  the  facts,  in 
relation  to  Amos  Peaslee's  being  disowned?  I  know  that  Jesse 
Thomas,  who  is  said  to  be  the  clerk  of  the  Woodbury  Monthly 
Meeting,  objected  to. — By  what  authority,  did  Jonathan 
Taylor  order  him  to  sit  down?  It  was,  because  he  was  under- 
stood to  have  been  disowned,  that  he  requested  him  to  sit 
down.  Is  it  according  to  the  usage  und  discipline  of  the  so- 
ciety? It  is.  In  the  proceedings  of  the  society  heretofore,  we 
have  generally  been  enabled  to  get  along  in  the  decision  of 
questions  very  harmoniously,  and  without  serious  difficulty, 
as  to  discovering  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  We  have  no  chair- 
man in  our  meetings,  but  it  is  the  business  of  the  clerk  to  col- 
lect the  sense  of  the  meeting,  and,  when  necessary,  to  explain 
questions.  As  I  understand  the  proceedings  in  other  bodies, 
those  duties  which  are  usually  divided  between  a  chairman  and 
secretary,  are  here  combined  in  the  clerk,  but  subjects  are  not 
put  to  vote.    Any  individual  who  has  a  right  to  be  there,  has 


26 


Trial  of  Friends 


a  right  to  express  his  sentiments ;  and  after  a  subject  has  been 
proposed  and  discussed,  the  clerk,  according  to  his  best  judg- 
ment, records  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  sense  of  the  meet- 
ing. The  minute  is  read,  and  if  no  objection  is  made,  it  is 
understood  to  be  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  But,  if  objections 
are  made,  they  are  attended  to;  the  discussion  may  be  renew- 
edj  the  clerk  corrects  or  changes  his  minute  as  he  considers 
the  sense  to  be;  and  it  is  still  subject  to  further  discussion,  and 
so  on  till  there  is  an  understanding  that  the  sense  of  the  meet- 
ing is  settled. 

You  take  then  into  the  estimate  the  weight  of  character? 
Certainly  the  weight  of  character  is  taken  into  consideration. 
I  understand  that  in  the  appointment  of  clerk,  the  subject  be- 
longs to  the  representatives.  I  did  suppose,  that  when  the 
clerk  was  not  present,  it  was'  the  duty  of  the  representatives  to 
appoint.  If  a  proposition  were  made,  I  should  suppose  it 
would  be  considered  their  privilege  to  answer.  It  is  their 
privilege  and  business  to  name  the  clerk.  But,  in  the  propo- 
sition to  make  David  Hilles  clerk,  there  was  no  application  to 
the  representatives,  though  a  member  objected.  Taylor  was 
appointed  as  a  substitute  for  me,  but  the  epistles  were  signed 
by  me,  as  clerk  of  the  meeting.  Do  you  know  that  there  was 
any  objection  to  the  appointment  of  Taylor,  or  to  his  continu- 
ance as  clerk?  No.  Here  the  witness  stated,  that  when  com- 
piling a  book  some  years  ago,  he  addressed  a  letter  to.  the 
society  of  Friends  in  London,  requesting  to  be  furnished  with 
authentic  information'in  relation  to  the  society.  The  Meeting 
for  Sufferings  acted  upon  this  application,  and  furnished  me 
this  book,  (holding  a  book  in  his  hand,)  with  others.  This 
book,  was  understood,  to  contain  a  history  of  proceedings  in 
the  society,  from  1681  to  1700  inclusive,  from  which  the  wit- 
ness read  some  passages,  which  we  arc  unable  to  furnish,  as 
they  were  not  recorded  at  the  time,  nor  have  we  since  found 
access  to  them. 

You  speak  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  as  being  a  branch  of 
the  Yearly  Meeting;  have  they  power  to  establish  articles  of 
discipline?  No.  Is  there  any  discipline,  not  contained  in  your 
book  of  discipline?  No.  Then  you  say  the  whole  discipline 
is  contained  in  it?  Yes,  but  there  are  some  rules,  which  have 
been  adopted  by  the  Yearly  Meeting,  since  the  book  was  pub- 
lished, which  are  considered  equally  binding.  You  have 
spoken  of  the  weight  of  character;  I  want  to  know  what  you 
mean  by  the  weight  of  character?  Are  there  degrees  of  cha- 
racter in  your  society?  Yes.  Well,  what  determines  the 
weight  of  character?  The  religious  usefulness  of  the  indi- 
vidual. Who  determines  and  weighs  the  character?  I  sup- 
pose it  is  taken  into  the  estimate  of  every  individual  acquaint- 
ed with  the  parties.    In  deciding  a  (luestion  in  the  Yearly 


at  Steubenville,,  Ohio. 


27 


Meeting,  who  is  to  determine  the  weight  of  character?  The 
clerk  is  the  judge  of  what  passes  before  him.  So,  then,  if 
half  a  dozen  of  great  weight,  vote  one  way,  and  two  or  three 
hundred  vote  the  other,  the  clerk  would  consider  it  as  carried 
by  the  greater  weight  of  character?  Yes — I  mean  to  be  un- 
derstood, that  individuals  of  acknowledged  experience,  recti- 
tude of  conduct,  and  general  usefulness  in  society,  possess 
more  influence,  than  a  boy,  or  stripling,  who  could  not  be  un- 
derstood as  possessing  religious  experience,  or  usefulness  in 
society!  there  may  be  other  cases  in  which  they  would 
have  no  weight  of  religious  character.  You  say  there  is  a 
difference;  that  some  have  greater  weight  than  others:  that  is, 
that  the  opinion  of  some  individuals,  will  be  received  as  out- 
weighing the  opinion  of  a  number  of  less  weight?  I  under- 
stand it  to  be  the  case.  There  may  be  individuals  who  are 
not  under  dealing,  and  yet  very  disorderly:  to  these  would  be 
paid  but  little  regard — they  would  have  but  little  or  no  weight. 
Do  you  find  that  in  the  discipline — is  it  a  distinction  that  has 
ever  been  made  till  recently?  I  believe  it  has  always  been 
made.  Then  the  majority  do  not  govern,  but  the  minority  may? 
Yes.  Do  you  ever  consider  a  question  as  carried  in  meeting, 
if  a  majority  express  their  opinion  against  it?  I  do  not  know 
that  I  ever  knew  a  case  of  the  kind.  Would  you,  as  clerk, 
make  a  minute,  if  the  majority  expressed  their  opinion  against 
it?  There  are  cases  in  which  it  might  be  done  consistently 
and  properly,  if  that  expression  was  out  of  the  order  of  socie- 
ty. Would  it  be  regular  for  the  clerk  of  a  meeting,  to  sit  it 
down  as  carried,  if  a  majority  expressed  against  it?  There 
might  be  cases  in  which  it  would  be.  Could  you,  as  clerk, 
set  down  a  thing  as  carried,  where  there  were  a  majority  of 
voices  against  it?  I  . could — if  the  general  body  of  active 
members  of  society,  those  who  had  been  known  to  have  the 
concerns  of  society  upon  them,  should  express  their  opinionj 
and  a  larger  number  of  those  who  had  not  taken  an  active  part, 
and  who  are  not  considered  as  persons  of  religious  experience, 
should  express  a  contrary  opinion,  the  clerk  would  not  be  jus- 
tifiable in  taking  this  as  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  Do  you  find 
that  in  your  book  of  discipline — is  it  laid  down  by  any  of  your 
writers  that  promulgate  the  opinions  of  the  society?  I  think 
that  Clarkson  gives  that  opinion.  Can  you  refer  to  it?  I  can- 
not: it  is  a  considerable  time  since  I  read  it,  but  I  believe  he 
gives  that  opinion.  Was  he  a  member  of  this  society?  He 
was  not.  Do  you  receive  such  writings  as  faith  and  discipline? 
It  is  considered  that  his  writings  were  a  faithful  portraiture  of 
the  manner  of  transacting  business  in  the  society.  He  had 
access  to  the  best  writings  of  the  day.  Don't  you  know  that 
Clarkson  says,  "every  member  comes  into  the  society  with 
equal  rights?"    I  don't  recollect.    I  will  ask  you,  if  the  mem- 


28 


Trial  of  Friends 


bers  of  the  society  of  Friends  would  not  proceed  to  business, 
if  there  were  not  delegates  from  all  the  five  quarters,  provided 
the  reports  were  sent  in?  I  think  they  would.  Would  they 
not  if  they  had  the  reports,  though  there  were  no  representa- 
tives present?  No,  they  could  not,  because  they  could  not 
know  the  reports  to  be  authentic.  Suppose  they  were  brought 
up  by  the  representatives,  and  that  the  representatives  should 
then  retire,  would  they  not  proceed  with  the  business?  No,  they 
could  not.  And  yet  you  say  the  representatives«haveno  more 
voice  in  the  meeting  than  the  other  members?  I  say  that  all  who 
have  a  right  to  attend  have  a  right  to  express  their  sentiments, 
and  that  the  sense  is  collected  by  the  clerk,  who  continues  to 
collect  it,  till  it  becomes,  in  his  estimation,  the  sense  of  the 
meeting.  In  taking  the  sense  of  the  meeting,  you  do  not  take 
the  sense  of  the  representatives  separately?  No.  Has  it  ever 
been  done?  I  don't  know  that  it  has.  Is  there  any  thing  in 
the  discipline  which  would  sanction  it?  Yes,  I  think  there  is, 
because  the  meeting  is  composed  by  representatives.  Is  it 
not  common  for  reports  to  be  sent  up?  I  do  not  recollect  to 
have  seen  such  a  case.  Was  Jonathan  Taylor  appointed  by 
the  representatives?  I  don't  know.  Can  you  not  see  by  the 
minute  how  he  was  appointed?    I  was  not  there. 

Jonathan  Taylor,  affirmed. — Were  you  present  at  the  Mount 
Pleasant  meeting?  I  was.  Were  you  the  clerk?  I  was  clerk 
of  the  preceding  year.  I  was  appointed  clerk  in  the  place  of 
the  old  clerk.  Did  you  open  the  meeting  on  Second-day  morn- 
ing? Yes,  I  did.  Was  it  a  religious  meeting?  I  considered 
it  so.  Was  it  disturbed?  I  considered  that  it  was.  Go  on 
to  relate  what  you  know. 

I  think,  as  was  stated  by  the  witness  yesterday,  that  near 
three-quarters  of  an  hour  before  the  usual  time  of  assembling, 
the  doors  were  opened.  After  a  number  of  persons  had  come 
in,  and  taken  seats,  there  appeared  to  be  some  objections 
made  at  one  of  the  doors,  to  the  admission  of  those  that  were 
not  members.  A  violent  rush  was  made,  and  a  large  num- 
ber rushed  into  the  house,  and  stepped  forward,  as  I  consider- 
ed, with  a  countenance  and  carriage  more  like  military  men, 
who  had  gained  a  conquest,  and  were  pressing  forward  to  the 
attainment  of  another,  than  like  men  coming  into  a  religious 
assembly.  A  number  pressed  pretty  far  forward,  and  got  to 
the  seats  near  the  galleries,  and  others  remained  at  the  doors 
on  the  inside,  and  assisted  their  party,  by  taking  hold  and  pull- 
ing them  in,  when  they  came  to  the  door. 

After  the  meeting-house  was  pretty  well  filled  on  the  lower 
story,  a  Friend  appeared  in  supplication,  at  which  time  consi- 
derable quiet  was  produced;  and  pretty  soon  after  this,  I  pre- 
pared my  papers,  to  open  the  meeting.  But  whilst  I  was 
making  preparation,  Israel  French—    Question  hy  the  judge. 


at  SleubenvUle,  Ohio. 


29 


How  long  al'ter  the  doors  were  opened,  did  you  make  this 
preparation?  I  should  think  near  half  an  hour,  but  may  be 
not  that  long.  Israel  French  said,  that  it  devolved  on  him  to 
state  to  the  meeting,  that  as  the  clerk  had  disqualified  himself 
by  trampling  on  the  discipline,  he  would  propose  that  another 
be  appointed  in  his  place.  Did  he  state  how  he  had  trampled 
upon  it.'^    Not  that  I  heard. 

I  considered  the  proposition  out  of  order,  in  two  points  of 
view.  It  was  out  of  order  to  make  a  proposition  of  such  a  kind, 
while  the  clerk  was  at  the  table;  and  inasmuch  as  the  charge 
was  unfounded,  it  was  additionally  so.  Were  you  under  deal- 
ing? No — I  was  under  no  disqualification,  as  I  apprehended, 
neither  did  my  friends  apprehend  it.  By  the  Judge. — W ere 
there  any  expressions  offered  upon  the  subject,  that  were  in 
favour  of  appointing  a  new  clerk?  I  believe  not;  though  op- 
position was  made  by  several  members  as  being  out  of  order. 
You  then  proceeded  to  read  the  opening  minute,  and  to  call 
the  representatives?  Yes.  I  think  it  was  before  David  Hilles 
was  proposed.  Do  you  know  who  proposed  Hilles?  I  do  not. 
Was  it  Israel  French?  I  think  not.  My  attention  at  the  time, 
was  pretty  closely  occupied  otherwise.  I  went  on  to  call  the 
representatives  from  the  different  quarters.  By  the  Judge. — 
This  proposition  to  appoint  Hilles,  was  made  while  you  were 
calling  the  representatives?  Yes.  Were  the  expressions  in 
favour,  or  against?  Some  in  favour,  and  some  in  opposition. 
The  party  that  had  proposed  him,  spoke  in  favour,  of  course. 
What  was  Jone,  after  you  had  done  calling  the  representatives? 
I  got  through  calling  the  names  of  representatives,  and  all 
answered,  except  five ;  two  of  whom  were  absent  and  sent 
reasons;  the  others,  I  believe,  were  present,  but  did  not  an- 
swer. Then  the  assistant  clerk,  as  is  usual,  took  up  the 
reports,  and  read  the  introduction.  And  by  the  time  he  had 
got  through,  there  was  considerable  clamour,  and  some  were 
urging  the  new  clerk  to  go  forward.  The  report  from  Red- 
stone Quarter  had  not  been  placed  in  my  hands;  but  the 
assistant  clerk  informed  the  meeting,  that  a  duplicate  had  been 
placed  in  his  hands,  which  was  signed  by  the  assistant  clerk 
of  the  Quarter — the  clerk  not  having  harided  the  report  to 
me,  as  others  had  done,  a  day  or  two  before.  What  number 
of  representatives  answered?  I  cannot  state;  but  believe  it  was 
mentioned  yesterday. 

What  preliminary  is  it  necessary  to  take,  before  a  meeting 
is  organized?  It  is  common  for  the  assembly  to  sit  in  silence 
for  a  short  time;  and  when  it  is  believed  to  be  a  proper  season, 
the  clerk,  or  some  other  person,  makes  a  move  to  open  the 
meeting,  and  then  the  clerk  proceeds  to  call  the  representa- 
tives. The  meeting  is  then  organized  for  the  despatch  of  other 
business.  The  pressing  at  the  door  was  before  this?  Yes. 
4 


30 


Trial  of  F'rimdi 


After  tlie  assistant  clerk  got  through  reading,  the  confusion 
increased,  so  that  it  was  thought  best  to  adjourn  the  meeting; 
and  a  number  of  the  name's  of  disorderly  persons  were  taken 
down.  What  was  the  disorderly  conduct?  It  was  urging  the 
clerk  to  the  table.  The  disturbance  continued  to  increase; 
and  when  they  appeared  to  be  pushing  him  towards  the  table, 
the  way  was  obstructed;  so  that  I  did  not  see  him,  to  distin- 
guish him  from  others.  A  number  (3f  persons  made  them- 
selves very  active;  and  one  threw  himself,  as  a  man  going  to 
swim,  upon  the  heads  and  shoulders  of  Friends,  and  went  near 
to  the  floor.  The  last  I  saw,  Avas  his  heels  above  the  heads 
and  shoulders  of  Friends.  The  next  I  saw  of  him,  was  at  my 
right  hand.  He  came  and  took  hold  of  the  end  of  the  table. 
At  the  time,  I  did  not  know  the  young  man,  but  was  told  his 
name  was  Jacob  Richards.  He  appeared  to  have  exerted  him- 
self to  a  high  degree;  the  sweat  was  rolling  down  his  cheeks 
on  both  sides.  And  aliout  this  time,  Isaac  James  had  made 
his  way  near  to  the  table,  at  my  left  hand.  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  was  before,  or  after  Jacob  Richards  got  there.  He 
appeared  as  if  he  had  had  a  hard  struggle.  He  said  a  number 
of  things  in  a  very  unbecoming  tone  of  voice,  for  such  a  place. 
Among  other  things,  he  said,  he  had  been  told,  that  was  the 
place  he  was  to  come  to  for  redress — and  you  now  prevent 
our  entering  the  house.  He  said  he  had  as  good  a  right  to 
be  in  the  house  as  another  person.  He  appeared  to  avoid 
using  his  hands,  but  seemed  to  make  use  of  his  sides  and 
elbows,  in  pressing  his  way;  and  in  a  kind  of  taunting  tone, 
said,  that  he  had  used  no  violence,  but  several  Friends  had 
used  violence  towards  him.  At  the  same  time,  I  thought  he 
■was  using  all  the  force  he  well  could,  to  get  to  the  table 
through  the  crowd. 

As  to  Hilles,  I  can't  say  much;  only,  that  after  the  violence 
had  been  so  great  that  the  table  was  broken,  and  he  had  got  to 
the  table,  I  heard  him  read.  While  this  young  man,  that  I 
was  told  was  Jacob  Richards,  had  taken  hold  of  the  east  end 
of  the  table,  Eli  Sidwell,  near  to  him,  had  hold  of  it;  and 
some  other  young  man  at  the  right,  had  hold  of  it;  and  it  ap- 
peared, they  were  endeavouring  to  remove  it  to  some  other 
place.  A  number  of  Friends,  as  well  as  myself,  considered  it 
a  duty  for  me  to  stay  at  the  place  near  the  table;  which  I  did, 
though  I  did  not  take  hold  of  it.  Those  individuals  had  hold 
of  it,  and  a  number  of  Friends;  perhaps  two  or  three  leaned 
on  it,  and  endeavoured  to  keep  it  to  its  place.  It  was  quick 
broken — the  legs  were,  several  of  them,  broken  out.  Do  you 
know  who  broke  it?  It  is  hard  for  me  to  tell.  I  thought  from 
the  cracking  of  the  leg,  that  Jacob  Richards  was  the  one.  He 
was  charged  with  it.  I  am  not  positive  it  was  that  side— two 
legs  were  broken  in  pretty  quick  succession.    Previous  to 


at  Steubenvilk,  Ohio. 


31 


this,  they  had  jerked  the  bar  from  tlic  door,  and  burst  it  open. 
1  believe  it  was  done  by  Richards.  It  was  either  him  or  Sid- 
wcll.  But  I  think  it  was  Richards.  After  the  legs  were 
broken,  they  still  kept  hold  of  the  leaves,  pushing  it  violently; 
and  said,  "let  us  put  it  out  of  doors."  I  do  not  know  who 
said  it.  But  pretty  soon  after  this,  the  violence  of  the  press 
increased,  so  that  they  got  me  pushed  against  the  jamb  of  the 
door. 

Previous  to  the  table  being  pushed,  a  Friend  had  come  in 
between  me  and  the  table,  but  he  got  rather  out  of  that  posi- 
tion, and  I  got  against  the  door,  and  the  table  came  partly 
against  me.    They  got  me  in  that  position,  and  were  pushing 
violently.    I  was  very  apprehensive  for  a  time,  that  I  sJiould 
have  lost  my  breath.     They  had  crushed  my  hat  over  my  face, 
so  that  I  could  not  tell:  but  I  think  Sidvvell  and  Richards  were 
at  my  right  hand.     Was  the  press  by  the  young  men  you 
speak  of?    Yes  it  was.    After  Friends  assisted  in  getting  me 
out,  I  was  soon  pushed  out  the  door.    And  soon  after  I  was 
landed  on  the  ground,  I  heard  a  voice  of  exultation,  (when 
Hilles  got  to  the  table,  and  myself  removed,)  huzza  for  Jack- 
son!   Did  you  see  Hilles,  when  you  were  pushed  out  of  the 
door?  I  did  not.    There  was  a  crowd  at  my  right  hand,  and 
I  had  sufficient  to  attend  to.    After  I  had  recovered  myself  a 
little,  though  I  felt  very  much  hurt,  I  thought  it  my  duty  to 
go  into  the  house  again,  as  clerk  of  the  meeting;  which  I  did. 
I  went  to  the  right  of  the  seat,  and  soon  after,  a  proposition 
was  made  to  adjourn  the  meeting.    The  assistant  clerk  called 
the  representatives,  and  they  gave  assent  to  the  adjoiirnment 
of  the  meeting;  and  shortly  after,  we  adjourned  till  the  next 
day.    Were  you  there  the  next  day?   I  was  not;  I  was  in  bed. 
After  I  got  out  of  the  house,  and  the  meeting  had  adjourned, 
I  went  to  Elisha  Bates',  and  got  bled,  and  had  other  medical 
aid.    And  after  staying  an  hour  or  two,  I  was  taken  home. 
Was  there  any  objection  made  to  the  adjournment?    I  do 
not  recollect  that  there  was,  there  may  have  been.  Who 
made  the  proposition  to  adjourn?    I  believe  it  was  Ben- 
jamin W.  Ladd.    Can  you  tell  the  proportion  that  went,  or 
I'emained?  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.    Do  you  know  the  num- 
ber within  the  bounds  of  this  Yearly  Meeting,  as  assembled?  I 
did  not  make  any  calculation  myself;  nor  did  I  observe  how 
many  remained.    Were  you  present  the  year  before,  when  you 
were  appointed  clerk,  in  place  of  Elisha  Bates?  I  was.  I  think 
it  was  mentioned  by  a  Friend,  that  Elisha  Bates  was  indisposed, 
and  not  able  to  serve  the  meeting ;  whether  he  mentioned  my 
name,  or  not,  I  do  not  know.    But  some  one  did,  and  it  was 
united  in,  unanimously.   I  think  it  was  on  Sixth-day. 

Did  you  hear  Isaac  James  say  any  thing  about  removing 
from  the  table,  persons  that  were  there?  At  one  period  I  hfard 


32 


Trial  of  Friends 


some  person  speak  of  removing  them,  but  do  not  know  that  it 
was  Isaac  James.  It  was  said,  that  suflicient  time  had  been 
given  ;  and  it  was  necessary  to  make  way  for  the  clerk  to  come 
to  the  table.  Was  that  immediately  before  the  crowd  pressed 
upon  you?  I  cannot  state,  but  it  appears  to  me,  it  was  after  I 
came  into  the  house  again. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Tappdn. 
What  arrangements,  if  any,  were  made  by  the  orthodox 
party,  to  guard  the  house,  previous  to  the  commencement  of 
the  meeting;  or  to  guard  the  entrance  to  the  house,  at  the  time 
of  the  meeting?  I  believe  that  no  improper  arrangements  were 
made,  to  keep  any  body  from  entering,  who  had  a  right  to  en- 
ter. A  person  was  put  in  possession  of  the  house  on  Seventh- 
day.  Were  there  more  than  one  appointed  to  this  charge?  I 
do  not  know  the  number.  At  what  time  was  the  meeting  ad- 
journed to  on  Saturday;  and  what  was  the  regular  hour  of 
meeting  on  Second-day?  At  10  o'clock.  I  want  to  know,- 
whether,  before  10  o'clock,  there  had  not  been  some  arrange- 
ments, out  of  the  common  order  of  discipline?  I  believe  not. 
It  has  been  common,  and  we  very  frequently  appoint  persons 
to  attend  at  the  doors,  to  keep  the  meeting  select;  to  inform 
those  not  members,  that  the  meeting  is  only  for  the  society  ; 
which  was  done  at  this  meeting.  What  number  is  generally 
supplied?  I  am  not  able  to  say — three  or  four,  perhaps  half  a 
dozen  at  each  door.  Were  there  more  on  this  occasion?  I 
cannot  state  positively.  Is  it  a  fact,  that  the  passages  to  the 
doors,  were  entirely  hemmed  up,  at  the  time  of  meeting?  I  was 
inside,  and  could  not  observe.  I  could  see  that  a  considerable 
crowd  was  at  the  door.  At  the  time  you  first  came  in,  there 
were  none  in  the  house  but  orthodox?  According  to  the  con- 
stant custom,  there  had  been  a  committee  on  Indian  concerns, 
who  met  at  8  o'clock;  but  I  was  engaged,  and  did  not  come 
till  about  9.  I  had  not  been  there  more  than  a  quarter  of  an 
hour,  before  the  press  to  get  in,  took  place.  Previous  to  that, 
had  not  guards  been  placed  upon  the  steps;  and  were  not  the 
passages  entirely  lined?  (Here  was  exhibited  a  plan  of  the 
building,  showing  the  situation  of  the  doors,  galleries,  table, 
&c.)  Were  not  those  steps,  which  lead  from  the  ile  to  the 
clerk's  table,  filled?  I  cannot  say.  Is  it  a  common  seat?  It  is 
frequently  occupied.  After  the  meeting  gathered,  the  steps 
were  very  much  crowded.  Can  you  say,  you  do  not  know 
that  a  combination  was  entered  into,  to  prevent  certain  per- 
sons from  entering  the  meeting?  There  was  no  such  combina- 
tion, to  prevent  any,  except  those  who  were  disowned  or  under 
dealing.  Then  your  understanding  was,  that  all  members  of 
the  society,  whether  composed  of  orthodox  or  not,  had  a  right 
to  come  into  the  house?   There  certainly  was  no  intention  to 


* 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


prevent  them.  You  say,  tlicn.  that  the  Quakers  had  a  right  to 
come  in,  that  is,  any  individual  who  had  a  right  in  the  society? 
Yes.  Had  any  of  those,  whom  you  denominate  Hicksites,  a 
right  to  come  there?  Certainly.  Do  you  know,  whether 
thoge  who  attempted  to  come  in,  when  they  were  shut  out, 
were,  or  were  not,  Hicksites  or  Quakers?  Well,  as  to  that,  I 
am  not  able  to  state  what  party  they  were  of;  only,  that  I  sus- 
pected they  were  a  mixture;  but  from  their  actions,  I  suppose 
they  were  Hicksites.  What  was  the  occasion  for  pulling  them 
in — who  opposed  them,  so  that  it  was  necessary  to  help  them 
in?  Those  who  were  placed  as  door-keepers  endeavoured  to 
prevent  them.  I  understand  you,  that  the  party  whom  you 
call  Hicksites,  all  had  a  right  there?  Yes.  Were  not  these 
guards,  and  the  Hicksites,  the  two  parties  engaged?  Yes.  If 
they  had  equal  rights,  then  every  person  ought  to  proceed  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  the  church?  Yes.  [Is  it 
correct,  for  any  one  to  submit  a  proposition,  that  the  former 
clerk  has  disqualified  himself,  if  he  believes  it  to  be  so?  I  sup- 
pose any  person  would  be  at  liberty  to  make  such  a  statement; 
but  if  the  meeting  did  not  think  it  in  order,  th-y  would  not  act 
upon  it.  If  this  were  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  those  having 
equal  rights,  would  it  not  be  thereby  carried?  I  should  not 
consider  that  it  would  be.  But  I  have  not  said,  that  all  indi- 
viduals had  an  equal  voice.  They  have  a  right  to  come  into 
the  house,  and  to  sit  there,  and  each  has  a  right  to  discuss 
any  matter,  and  to  give  his  opinion,  when  a  question  is  un- 
der discussion.  Is  it  proper  for  the  clerk  to  go  on  with  business, 
when  a  question  is  under  discussion?  I,  as  clerk,  did  not  con- 
sider there  was  any  question  under  discussion.  You  made  the 
distinction,  then,  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio  consisted 
of  orthodox?  There  were  members  that  belonged  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  who  were  not  considered  as  orthodox,  that 
were  still  members.  The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio  consists 
of  five  Quarterly  Meetings  ;  will  you  state  the  names  of  them,  if 
you  please?  Redstone,  Short  Creek,  Salem,  Stillwater,  and 
New  Garden. 

You  say,  all  the  reports  had  been  handed  in,  except  the  one 
from  Redstone?  Yes.  Do  you  know  who  was  the  regular  clerk 
of  that  Quarterly  Meeting?  I  was  at  the  Quarter,  and  I  I)e!ieve 
David  Hilles  was  the  clerk.  The  person  who  is  here,  as  one 
of  the  defendants?  Yes.  Who  produced  the  paper  from  that 
Quarter?  It  was  not  signed  by  David  Hilles,  but  by  the  as- 
sistant. Should  not  all  those  papers  be  signed  by  the  clerk? 
Yes— but  there  are  cases  in  which  it  would  do  without.  Did 
you  ever  know  a  case,  in  which  a  copy,  signed  by  the  assistant 
clerk,  could  take  the  precedence  of  that  signed  by  the  regular 
clerk?  I  never  did;  nor  did  I  ever  know  a  case  in  which  the 
report  was  withheld  by  the  clerk.    Has  there  not  been  a  divi- 


34 


Trial  of  Friends 


sion  of  those  Quarters,  which  formerly  constituted  the  society 
of  Friends?  I  cannot  speak  with  certainty  of  any  but  our  own, 
I  am  not  able  to  state  any  thing  of  New  Garden,  only  from 
hearsay.  Is  it  not  well  known,  that  the  representatives  who 
came  from  this  Quarter  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  were  seceders 
from  that  Quarter?  I  do  not  consider  that  they  were  seceders. 
Who  signed  the  report  from  New  Garden  as  clerk?  I  believe 
it  was  Joseph  Fisher.  Was  the  person  that  signed  that  pa- 
per the  clerk?  (This  question  was  objected  to,  as  the  reports 
and  records  were  then  present;  and  replied  to;  we  expect  to 
show  that  all  these  are  incorrect,  and  that  we  have  the  correct 
ones,  and  we  merely  inquire,  whether  they  have  the  names  of  the 
clerks,  as  each  report  should  have  the  name  of  the  clerk;  but  it 
is  not  found  on  record  in  the  book.)  Witness  proceeds — I  did 
not  see  Hilles  when  this  crowd  was  coming  up,  to  know  him, 
at  all,  for  I  had  removed  to  sorne  distance,  and  there  was  a 
considerable  crowd  between  us. 

At  the  time  the  proposition  was  made  to  appoint  a  new 
clerk,  had  you  opened  your  papers?  It  was  before  I  read  the 
opening  minutef  but  I  was  about  preparing  the  minute.  Was 
this  proposition  agreed  to  by  the  meeting  present?  I  did  not 
consider  that  it  was,  in  a  meeting  capacity.  There  were  a 
number  of  voices  uniting,  but  it  was  in  a  very  unbecoming 
manner;  and  many  voices  at  once.  It  appeared  to  be  an  ap- 
probation, but  a  number  expressed  together,  which  was  very 
disorderly.  I  think  I  began  to  read  before  the  name  of  Hilles 
was  announced.  The  proposition  was  objected  to.  Was  it 
by  more  than  two?  I  am  not  willing  to  say:  it  was  not  a  large 
number.  It  was  considered  so  much  out  of  order,  that  I  went 
on.  If  the  same  number  of  voices  had  come  from  the  ortho- 
dox side,  and  as  few  from  the  other  side,  .would  you  not  have 
suspended  operations?  I  think  not,  if  it  had  been  done  in  the 
same  manner.  Suppose  there  were  grounds  of  accusation 
against  the  clerk — suppose  there  had  been  just  cause?  In  that 
case,  I  suppose  it  would  have  been  proper  to  have  suspended 
business.  Well,  does  the  clerk  always  judge,  whether  the 
people  have  cause  to  act?  Not  exclusively.  Suppose  the 
whole  people  had  seen  cause  to  appoint  a  new  clerk,  and  you 
had  thought  otherwise,  would  you  have  proceeded?  No,  I 
would  not.    Even  if  you  had  thought  there  was  no  cause?  No. 

Have  not  the  members,  when  assembled,  power  to  appoint 
a  new  clerk?  Circumstances  of  that  kind  have  seldom  occur- 
red; but  I  suppose  it  may  be  said,  they  would  have  the  right. 
Then  the  persons  composing  the  Yearly  Meeting,  are  really 
the  judges  of  the  case?  The  representatives,  it  is  generally 
understood,  have  the  appointment  of  clerk.  But  if  the  meet- 
ing, in  their  collective  capacity,  saw  fit,  they  would  have  the 
right?    Yes.    You  were  appointed  that  way  yourself,  were 


al  Steubenville,  Oliio. 


35 


you?  I  was  appointed  by  the  meeting.  At  the  time  that 
you  were  appointed,  did  the  representatives  act  separately  from 
the  meeting?  No.  Did  they  ever  take  to  themselves,  the 
right  to  act  separately  from  their  brethren  in  attendance,  on 
any  occasion?  No,  I  never  knew  any  need  of  it}  we  have 
always  got  along  without. 

Now,  as  it  regards  the  representative  power;  I  understand 
that  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  composed  of  those  who  represent 
the  Quarterly  Meetings,  and  all  those  within  the  limits  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  those  from  other  parts  who  are  in  good 
standing?  It  has  been  the  usage  of  society,  that  the  meeting 
should  be  composed  in  that  wayj  but,  notwithstanding,  there 
would  be  no  Yearly  Meeting  except  the  representatives  attend- 
ed. And  if  they  attended,  and  no  other  persons,  they  would 
be  qualified  to  hold  a  Yearly  Meeting.  Suppose  that  the  re- 
presentatives from  four  Quarters  were  present,  and  the  repre- 
sentatives from  one  not  present,  but  their  report  there;  would 
not  all  the  five  quarters  be  represented,  so  that  the  proceed- 
ings would  be  regular,  and  binding  upon  all?  I  cannot  say 
whether  the  meeting  would  .consider  it  legal;  but  they  would 
hold  a  Yearly  Meeting.  Suppose  the  reports  from  four  Quar- 
ters were  sent  up,  but  the  representatives  did  not  attend,  and 
the  representatives  did  attend  from  the  one  quarter;  would 
there  not  be  a  Yearly  Meeting?  I  think  not.  Is  there  any 
thing  in  the  discipline,  or  writings  of  the  society,  which  goes 
to  show  that?  I  believe  not..  When  the  copy  of  a  report  from 
Redstone  Quarter  was  referred  to,  was  the  sense  of  the  meet- 
ing taken  on  that?  I  think  there  was  an  expression,  that  it 
would  be  accepted.  The  clerk  mentioned  that  the  duplicate 
was  there.  Who  proposed  its  being  accepted?  I  do  not  know 
who  made  the  statement;  but  some  one  said  it,  and  no  objec- 
tion was  made.  Did  not  the  pushing  and  crowding,  about  that 
time,  arise  from  persons  arraying  themselves  in  the  ile,  and 
near  the  table?  It  was  closely  filled  around  the  table.  And 
did  they  not  move  up  to  fill  that  place?  I  think  it  was  pretty 
full  all  the  time,  from  the  time  the  meeting  gathered. 

Was  not  the  breaking  of  the  table,  in  consequence  of 
resistance  by  power?  I  think  the  table  would  not  have  been 
broken,  if  certain  individuals  had  not  taken  hold  of  it — if  those 
disorderly  persons  had  kept  where  they  ought  to  have  kept. 
Did  not  the  orthodox  pull  some?  I  did  not  discover  that  they 
pulled;  they  leaned  on  it.  At  the  time  you  got  up  against  the 
door  jamb,  was  it  not  in  consequence  of  your  party  pulling  the 
table  towards  you?  It  was  pushed  that  way.  Which  party 
occupied  the  galleries,  and  filled  them?  The  galleries,  a  num- 
ber of  them,  were  pretty  early  filled  by  the  committee  on  In- 
dian concerns,  and  strangers  from  a  distance,  who  had  taken 
their  seats— it  was  a  pretty  large  committee.     Were  they 


36 


Trial  of  Friemh 


not  all  orthodox?  I  think  it  probable  they  were.  Of  what 
number  did  it  consist?  I  am  not  able  to  ascertain  the  number. 
Do  you  suppose  there  were  two  hundred?  No,  not  the  half  of 
it.  Did  not  some  one  pull,  you  out  of  the  door?  I  was  not 
sensible  of  any  person  behind  me,  but  it  was  said  that  some 
one  pulled  me.  Was  not  this  about  the  time  the  alarm  was 
given?  No,  the  alarm  was  given  before  that — considerably 
before  that;  for  I  looked  up,  and  believed  it  to  be  a  stratagem. 
The  alarm  was  over  before  that.  When  Hilles  was  requested 
to  take  the  clerk's  seat,  and  the  members  began  to  move  up 
that  way,  did  you  see  any  striking?  I  saw  Benjamin  W.  Ladd 
raise  up  his  hands,  as  if  to  prevent  others  from  coming,  but 
the  crowd  all  round  was  so  thick  I  could  not  see.  (He,  the 
witness,  gave  some  explanation  about  the  relative  position  of 
those  who  surrounded  him.)  Did  not  you  raise  up  your  hands, 
and  say,  "the  gallery  is  falling?"  I  did  not  do  any  such 
thing. 

On  Seventh-day,  were  not  Belangee  and  others  excluded 
from  coming  into  the  meeting  of  ministers  and  elders?  James 
Belangee  would  not  have  been  prevented  had  he  applied.  Was 
not  Belangee  excluded?  I  believe  he  chose  to  stay  out  with 
others. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright  for  the  prosecution. — Does  not  the 
clerk  act  as  the  presiding  officer  in  the  Yearly  Meeting;  and 
if  difficulty  arises,  is  it  not  the  duty  of  the  clerk  to  explain  it? 
Yes,  if  he  understands  it.  Pufing  this  commotion,  about 
taking  the  table,  was  there  any  request  made  for  you  to  ex- 
plain the  usage  of  the  meeting?  Not  at  all.  As  to  the  report 
from  Redstone  Quarter;  was  there  any  request,  that  you  should 
vary  your  decision?  I  don't  remember  any.  Is  that  the  re- 
port? (handing  a  paper.)  It  is,  and  it  is  signed  by  the  assist- 
ant clerk.  Is  the  door,  back  of  the  clerk,  used  for  entering  the 
house?  No,  it  is  kept  shut,  excepting  in  very  warm  weather. 
There  is,  I  think,  no  step:  it  is  about  two  feet  down.  Is  there 
any  gate  leading  to  the  yard,  back?  No,  it  is  a  secluded  yard. 
Who  opened  the  door?  I  believe  it  was  Jacob  Richards.  Af- 
ter you  were  pushed  out  of  the  door,  were  the  persons  you  saw 
there  Hicksites?  I  am  not  able  to  state.  Were  they  proba- 
bly persons  who  had  been  pushed  out?  I  believe  not.  As  to 
the  part  that  is  called  the  ministers'  gallery;  is  the  ile  leading 
to  it  closed  by  a  gate  or  door?  No:  there  was  no  obstruction 
in  the  way;  nothing  but  the  crowd  of  people.  Were  others 
there, than  those  engaged  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  business,before 
the  doors  were  opened  in  the  morning?  I  don't  know  that  there 
were,  except  strangers — those  that  were  guards  and  represen- 
tatives being  in  the  women's  room.  At  the  time  the  door  was 
about  to  be  opened,  they  came  in.  I  know  of  no  preconcert. 
I  came  into  the  committee  about  9  o'clock,  and  took  my  seat. 


1 


at  Sluubtiiville,  Ohio. 


37 


Do  you  suy  llial  all  individuals  have  equal  privileges  and  pow- 
ers? I  did  not  say  powers:  I  consider  that  the  representatives 
are  clothed  with  power,  when  it  becomes  necessary,  but  I 
never  knew  an  instance.  Did  you  ever  know  a  meeting  to 
appoint  a  clerk,  except  in  the  instance  mentioned?  I  think 
not.    When  I  was  appointed,  there  was  not  a  dissenting  voice. 

Cross-examination  resumed. — Have  you  not  known  instances 
of  the  appointment  of  clerk  by  the  Yearly  Meeting  ?  The  clerk 
is  usually  appointed  by  the  meeting,  with  the  nomination  of 
the  representatives.  Were  you  not  present  at  Indiana  Yearly 
Meeting,  when  the  same  thing  happened?  No. 

Jordan  Harrison  affirmed. — Witness  stated  that  he  was  clerk 
of  Short  Creek  Monthly  Meeting. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — Is  Isaac  James  a  member  of  the 
Monthly  Meeting  of  which  you  are  clerk?  He  was  a  mem- 
ber. (Here  witness  read  from  the  records  of  the  meeting, 
dated  the  22d  of  Seventh-month,  1828,  a  minute,  respecting  a 
committee  to  prepare  testimonies,  &c.;  and  also  a  minute, 
showing,  that  said  committee  had  produced  testimonies  of  dis- 
ownment  against  Isaac  James,  &c.;  that  these  were  separately 
read,  approved,  and  signed;  and  also  showing  that  a  commit- 
tee had  waited  on  James,  with  a  testimony  of  disownment, 
and  informed  him  of  his  right  to  appeal.)  This  testimony 
was  made  out  by  the  committee,  and  signed  by  me.  Did  you 
deliver  it  to  the  committee?  I  did,  and  they  returned  it  to 
me,  and  I  have  it  now.  He  did  not  appeal.  Do  you  know 
any  way  in  which  an  officer,  and  member  of  the  society,  can 
be  disqualified,  other  than  by  dealing  and  disownment,  by  the 
meeting  to  which  he  belongs?  I  do  not.  Could  the  clerk  be 
disqualified,  except  by  disownment?  He  might  if  he  had  been 
under  dealing  for  a  violation  of  discipline;  but  it  must  l)e  in 
the  Monthly  Meeting  of  which  he  is  a  member;  and  if  he  be  a 
transgressor  in  any  respect,  he  is  then  consiilercd,  in  our 
phrase,  to  be  under  dealing,  and  disqualified  from  sitting. 

Mr.  Wright  here  read  the  following  testimony  of  disown- 
ment. 

"  Isaac  James,  having  had  a  right  of  membership  among 
us,  but  having  associated  himself  with  others,  in  resisting  the 
subordination  of  the  Monthly,  to  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  in 
holding  meetings  contrary  thereto;  and  having  been  treated 
with,  he  not  appearing  in  a  suitable  disposition  of  mitid  to 
condemn  his  deviation;  we,  therefore,  disown  him  from  being 
a  member  of  our  religious  society. 

Signed  in,  and  by  order  of,  Short  Creek  Monthly  Meeting, 
held  the  22d  day  of  Seventh-month,  1828. 

Jordan  Harrison,  Clerk." 

Are  you  the  clerk  for  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings?  Yes. 
What  constitutes  this  meeting?    It  consists  of  twenty-six 
5 


'/')•/((/  of  Friends 


niemhers,  appoii\(P(i  by  the  Yearly  Meeting,  with  an  additiolf 
oC  four  from  each  Quarterly  Meeting,  be  the  Quarters  few  or 
many.  Those  coming  from  other  Meetings  for  Sufferings, 
and  approved  ministers,  have  a  disciplinary  right  to  sit  with 
us.  What  is  the  office  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings?  It  is, 
to  act  in  the  recess  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  as  explained  in  the 
discipline.  The  Meeting  for  Sufferings  consists  of  active 
members,  and  acts  in  place  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  their  re- 
cess. And  when  they  think  it  adviseable,  they  have  issued  tes- 
timonies of  advice;  they  attend  to  all  cases  which  they  think 
suffering,  whether  as  to  property  or  doctrine — if  they  are 
liable  to  be  prostrated,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  Meeting 
for  Sufferings,  to  extend  advice  or  assistance,  and  to  call  on 
the  treasurer  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  for  the  expenses.  It  is 
considered  the  duty  of  the  represerttatives  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, to  take  care  of  all  suffering  cases  during  the  recess. 

Were  there  any  Hicksites  in  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  of 
Ohio  Yearly  Meeting?  No,  Were  there  any  in  the  commit- 
tee on  Indian  concerns?  No.  I  am  not  aware  that  there  were 
any  such  in  attendance.  I  think,  that  very  few  have  ever  be- 
longed to  that  committee,  since  I  became  a  member  of  it.  Is 
it  among  the  duties  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  to  appoint 
committees  to  attend  the  Monthly,  or  Quarterly  Meetings?  I 
do  not  know  that  it  is  stated  in  the  discipline,  that  they  should 
appoint  committees,  but  that  they  should  extend  carej  and 
committees  have  been  the  usual  way,  except  by  epistolary 
advice.  The  general  practice  has  been  by  committees,  in  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings  for  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.  It  has,  at 
distant  periods,  appointed  committees  to  attend  Monthly 
Meetings;  and,  in  a  more  recent  case,  Quarterly  Meetings. 
How  does  this  Meeting  for  Sufferings  act,  while  the  Yearly 
Meeting  is  in  session— Does  it  make  a  report  when  the  Yearly 
Meeting  assembles?  Yes.  Does  it  report  to  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing? Yes.  To  which  body  did  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  report 
this  fall — Did  they  report  to  those  who  held  their  sitting,  at 
Short  Creek  house,  after  being  expelled  l)y  Hilles  and  his 
company?  Yes.  Does  not  the  treasurer  hold  himself  ac- 
countable to  this  Meeting  for  Sufferings?  Yes,  he  does.  Did 
any  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufi'erings  separate  and  go  with  the 
Hicksites?  Not  one,  I  believe.  Have  not  the  members  of 
the  Meeting  for  Suffei  ings,  for  a  long  time  acted  in  that  situa- 
tion, having  been  appointed  before  there  was  any  division  in 
the  society?  Yes — 1  suppose  a  very  large  majority  of  them. 
There  is  a  provision,  that,  when  any  member  of  the  meeting 
shall  greatly  neglect  the  duties  of  the  meeting,  be  removed  by 
death,  or  other  removal;  notice  be  given,  and  his  place  sup- 
plied. Some  by  removal— some  by  disease — some  on  account 
of  neglect  of  attendance,  have  been  supplied;  still,  the  largest 


at  Steubenvilie^  Ohio. 


"9 


wiunibcr  arc  of  the  old  nieinbcis,  who  have  continued,  since 
the  cliange,  al)out  halt"  a  dozen  years  ago.  1  think,  ten  or  a 
tlozen  would  be  all  that  have  been  changed. 

To  whom  did  visiting  Friends  from  other  Yearly  Meetings 
unite  themselves — With  this  meeting,  with  Meeting  for  Suf- 
ferings, or  any  other  body?  They  sat  with  this  meeting  when 
they  did  attend,  although  they  did  not  attend  every  time. 

Cross-examinalion  by  Mr.  Kennon. — Does  every  Monthly 
Meeting  possess  certain  territorial  limits?  No  other  than  the 
local  situation  of  those  belonging  to  the  subordinate  meetings; 
tliej-e  is  no  geographical  line.  To  which  meeting  did  Isaac 
James  belong?  To  Concordj  but  that  meeting  had  been  laid 
down.  Were  you  present  at  the  Quarter,  at  the  time  Concord 
Monthly  Meeting  was  laid  down  ?  I  think  I  was.  Was  thei-e 
any  opposition  to  laying  down  that  meeting?  I  believe  there 
were  some  individuals  who  objected.  Did  you  ever  know  a 
Monthly  Meeting — Here  Mr.  IVrigJit  objected  to  the  inquiry, 
as  to  the  regularity  of  the  proceedings  of  Short  Creek  Quar- 
terly Meeting,  in  laying  down  Concord  Monthly  Meeting.  We 
object  to  the  introduction  of  such  testimony  for  this  reason; 
that  an  appellate  right  exists  in  the  Quarterly  Meeting  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  in  the  Monthly  Meeting  to  the  Quarterly 
Meeting.  There  is  a  connexion  and  dependence,  provided  by 
the  discipline,  running  from  the  lower  branches  up  to  the 
supervisory  control  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  I  put  it  upon 
the  footing  precisely,  of  a  judgment  in  our  courts  of  justice. 
If  the  court  have  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter,  the  regu- 
larity of  the  proceeding  cannot  be  inquired  into;  but  the  judg- 
ment must  be  esteemed  as- binding,  and  obligatory  upon  every 
person,  till  brought  to  the  superior  tribunal  and  reversed.  It 
is  obligatory,  and  stands  in  full  force  till  it  shall  be  reversed. 
I  will  refer  to  one  single  example  within  my  recollection. 
That  is,  where  the  proceeding  is  so  palpably  gross,  as  to  make 
it  null  and  void.  We  will  take  the  case  of  a  justice  of  the 
peace  (to  get  one  familiar  to  our  common  experience.)  Should 
it  appear  by  the  record  of  his  docket,  that  he  had  proceeded 
to  try  an  action  of  slander;  that,  I  apprehend,  would  be  an 
irregularity  of  proceeding,  so  gross,  as  to  make  it  null  and 
void;  it  being  a  subject  not  embraced  within  his  jurisdiction. 
We  will  take  another  case,  where  it  appears  by  reference 
to  the  record,  that  a  party  never  had  any  notice  of  the  com- 
mencement of  a  suit,  or  any  day  in  court — in  that  case,  the 
subject  matter  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court — yet,  it 
is  one  among  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  jurisprudence, 
that  the  parties  shall  have  a  day  in  court.  And  if  that  princi- 
ple be  a  correct  one,  and  this  case  is  apposite,  there  appears 
to  be  no  difficulty.    I  therefore  object  to  going  into  an  ex- 


40 


Trial  of  Friends 


amination  of  tlie  wilnehs,  as  to  t}>c  subject  mailer,  over  wiiitii 
the  meeting  had  jurisdiction. 

ilJr.  Tuppan. — Wc  take  this  position:  thai  a  Quarterly 
Meeting  has  no  right  to  lay  down  a  Monthly  Meeting,  without 
their  consent.  Here  Mr.  Tappan  read  from  the  book  of  dis- 
cipline, page  29,  "  no  Quarterly  Meeting  should  be  set  up,  or 
laid  down,  without  the  consent  of  the  Yearly  Meeting;  no 
Monthly  Meeting,  without  the  consent  of  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing; nor  any  preparative  or  other  meeting  for  business  or 
worship,  until  application  to  the  Monthly  Meeting  be  first 
made  ;  and  when  there  approved,  the  consent  of  the  Quarterly 
Meeting  be  also  obtained.  Also,  no  meeting  for  worship,  in- 
tended to  consist  of  Friends,  belonging  to  two  or  more  Monthly 
Meetings,  shall  be  established,  until  the  proposal  be  offered  to 
and  approved  by  those  Monthly  Meetings,  and  the  consent  of 
their  respective  Quarterly  Meeting  or  Meetings  be  obtained." 
We  want  to  show,  that  a  Quarterly  Meeting  had  no  right  to 
lay  down  that  meeting;  and  we  ask  to  know  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  done,  in  order  to  show  that  they  proceeded  with- 
out authority.  It  is  claimed  on  the  side  of  the  orthodox,  that 
James  was  a  disowned  member.  When  a  man  belongs  to  a 
religious  society,  he  has  certain  rights,  and  can  be  deprived 
of  these  rights,  only,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  society  of 
which  he  is  a  member.  Whether  a  man  .be  raised  in  the 
society,  or  admitted  as  a  member,  or  any  other  way,  when  he 
becomes  a  member,  he  has,  according  to  the  testimony  which 
you  have  heard,  an  equal  right  to  attend  and  express  his 
opinion. 

It  is  pretended  here,  that  this  Isaac  James  has  been  depriv- 
ed of  this  right,  which  could  only  he,  by  regular  proceedings, 
•  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  church.  If  then,  it  be  impor- 
tant for  them  to  show  that  he  has  been  regularly  disowned, 
and  has  no  rights,  it  is  important  for  us  to  show,  that  he  was 
not  regularly  disowned  as  a  member;  and  that  the  meeting 
which  exercised  this  authority  over  him,  had,  by  the  disci- 
pline, no  such  power  to  lay  down  that  meeting,  except  by  ap- 
plication and  consent.  The  discipline  does  not  permit  them 
to  lay  down  a  Monthly  Meeting,  except  by  application.  It  is 
not  a  matter  of  compulsion,  but  is  a  matter  that  follows  from 
the  request  of  the  subordinate  meeting,  and  is  only  used,  when 
it  is  desirable  to  promote  the  convenience  of  a  Monthly  Meet- 
ing. To  exercise  this  power  in  the  way  that  it  has  been  ex- 
ercised, by  the  orthodox,  to  destroy  those  whom  they  dislike, 
is  not  authorized  by  the  discipline  of  the  church.  In  that 
point  of  view,  we  deem  the  testimony  material.  The  court 
will  recollect,  that  the  other  side  have  given  evidence  to  prove 
that  James  had  been  disowned;  and  we  wish  to  show  that  the 
disownment  was  illegal.    ^Vc  say  thai  it  was  altogether  illc- 


at  Steubcnville,  Ohio. 


41 


gal  from  beginning  to  end.  We  wish  to  prove  lo  the  court, 
that  Concord  Monthly  Meeting  has  continued  to  exist,  and  that 
James  is  yet  a  member  there.    Mjourned  till  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Thursday,  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 

The  Judge  said  he  understood  it  to  be  proven,  that  Concord 
Monthly  Meeting  was  laid  down  by  the  Short  Creek  Quarterly 
Meeting;  if  that  had  been  proven,  the  testimony  in  question 
was  unnecessary. 

Mr.  Wright  said  he  understood,  consent  was  neither  asked 
nor  obtained;  but  in  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  when  the  Monthly 
Meeting  was  laid  down,  there  were  only  two  or  three  voices 
heard  in  opposition.  Mr.  James  was  in  fact  a  member  of  Con- 
cord Meeting,  and  the  order  laying  it  down,  also  attached  the 
members  to  Short  Creek  Montlily  Meeting. 

The  Judge.— Go  on  with  the  witness. 

Cross-examination  resumed  by  Mr.  Tappan.—Qefore  this  diffi- 
culty arose  in  your  society,  did  you  ever  know  a  Monthly 
Meeting  attached  to  any  Quarterly  Meeting  without  its  con- 
sent? I  have  known  instances  of  meetings  being  laid  dqwn  for 
certain  purposes,  and  attached  to  other  meetings.  Have  you 
ever  known  of  a  Monthly  Meeting  being  set  up,  without  appli- 
cation being  made?  I  think  not;  but  there  are  applications  made 
in  different  ways,  and  sometimes  by  request.  It  has  been  con- 
sidered a  rule  of  society,  that  there  should  be  some  request. 
You  say  that  you  were  present  at  the  laying  down  of  this 
Monthly  Meeting?  Yes.  Did  Concord  Meeting  agree  to  it? 
I  think  there  was  some  objection,  and  I  am  glad  to  have  an 
opportunity  to  explain.  One  objected,  and  another  said  that 
Friends  had  better  be  careful  what  they  were  doing.  Was 
there  any  application  made  for  that  Monthly  Meeting  to  be  laid 
down?  No,  not  in  the  character  of  a  Monthly  Meeting.  Did 
you  ever  know  a  Monthly  Meeting  attached  to  another  meet- 
ing, without  its  consent?  There  is  discipline  which  shows 
that  no  Monthly  Meeting  shall  be  laid  down  without  consent 
of  the  Quarter.  Were  you  present  at  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Ohio?  Yes.  What  time  did  you  go  in?  About  8  o'clock. 
Were  you  in  when  Israel  French  made  the  proposition?  I  was. 
Was  it  before  or  ^fter  Jonathan  Taylor  read  the  opening  mi- 
nute? He  made  the  proposition,  and  then  paused  a  little  space, 
during  which  interval,  if  my  memory  serves  me  right,  Jona- 
than Taylor  opened  the  meeting.  The  proposition  was  then 
renewed,  and  David  Hilles  named.  When  he  said  it  devolved 
on  him,  &c.  were  there  any  that  concurred  in  the  proposition? 
I  think  not  till  Jonathan  Taylor  read  the  opening  minute,  and 
then  the  voices  were  heard.  I  think  he  said  it  devolved  on 
him  to  state,  that  the  clerks  had  so  conducted  since,  or  during 
the  last  year,  as  to  render  them  incompetent  to  open  the  meet- 


42 


Trial  of  Friends 


ing.  Was  the  meeting  (juiet?  Itwas^  and,  as  I  understand, 
immediately  after,  Jonathan  Taylor  proceeded.  Israel  was  jusi 
before  me,  and  I  urged  him  to  be  quiet,  and  not  disturb  the 
meeting.  I  told  him  to  wait  till  the  representatives  brought 
forth  a  name,  and  then  would  be  the  time  to  object.  Jonathan 
Taylor  read  the  opening  minute,  and  Israel  added,  that  he  had 
trampled  upon  the  discipline.  Who  nominated  David  Hilles 
as  clerk.''  After  speaking  to  Israel,  he  passed  into  the  crowd, 
and  I  cannot  say  who  named  him.  After  he  was  named,  were 
there  not  a  great  many  voices  in  favour  of  him?  There  were 
a  great  many.  Were  there  any  against  it?  Yes — there  were 
not  many  that  spoke.  I  did  hear  some  speak.-  Well,  how  many 
do  you  suppose  spoke  in  favour  of  it?  I  cannot  say.  Do  you  not 
think  there  were  as  many  as  a  hundred  that  spoke  in  favour  of 
it?  There  might  have  been.  I  suppose  that  all  who  continued 
in  meeting  spoke.  Can  you  form  any  idea  of  the  number  of 
individuals?  I  cannot.  If  there  had  been  no  division,  the 
meeting  remaining  as  before  this  division  took  place,  and  the 
nomination  had  been  made,  and  the  same  number  of  voices  ap- 
proved it,  would  you  not  have  considered  it  binding?  No,  not 
if  it  had  been  done  in  that  disorderly  manner.  But  if  it  had 
been  orderly?  It  could  not  be  in  order,  because  the  meeting 
was  not  organized. 

Suppose  that  a  few  moments  before  the  meeting  was  about 
to  be  organized,  Jonathan  Taylor  had  committed  murder; 
would  it  have  been  proper  for  Jonathan  Taylor  to  open  the 
meeting?  Extraordinary  cases  produce  extraordinary  mea- 
sures. Is  there  any  other  power  that  can  put  Jonathan  Tay- 
lor under  dealing,  except  his  Monthly  Meeting?  No.  It 
belongs  to  his  own  Monthly  Meeting  then?  Yes.  Are  repre- 
sentatives known  as  such  till  called  by  the  clerk?  They  are 
not  fairly  known,  for  they  cannot  be  announced  as  representa- 
tives, till  the  reports  are  received  and  their  names  called.  Yet 
it  is  always  presumable  in  the  gathering  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, that  the  representatives  are  in  the  house.  But  how  do 
you  ascertain  that  there  are  representatives  there?  By  the 
clerk's  calling  their  names,  and  reading  the  reports;  that  is 
the  way  we  know  them.  Are  they,  by  the  meeting,  consider- 
ed in  a  representative  capacity  till  they  are  called?  They  ap- 
pear to  be  by  the  discipline,  inasmuch  as  they  are  ordered  to 
perform  an  official  duty.  The  clerk  is  in  office  from  one  year 
to  another.  Is  he  acting  as  an  organ  of  the  meeting  before 
the  meeting  is  called?  It  seems  to  be  so  by  the  discipline;  so 
far  that  he  is  to  act  previous  to  the  opening  of  the  meeting- 
Suppose  that  just  previous  to  the  time  he  receives  these  re- 
ports, he  conducts  so  improperly,  that  the  representatives  are 
not  willing  to  put  the  reports  into  his  hands?  In  such  case, 
1  think  they  would  probably  make  a  deputation,  to  announce 


at  Steubenville)  Ohio. 


43 


the  circumstance  to  the  meeting  generally.  Do  you  know  that 
Israel  French  did  not  do  that  very  thing,  for  the  representa- 
tives? We  have  proof  to  the  contrary  from  the  clerk,  who  has 
the  reports.  Were  you  in  the  meeting  the  day  before  that?  I 
was.  Did  you  hear  Jonathan  Taylor  tell  any  one  to  sit  down? 
I  heard  him  request  Amos  Peaslee  to  doit:  he  did  it  not  more 
than  once  that  I  heard.  Was  Peaslee  speaking  as  a  minister? 
He  was  speaking  in  the  ministers'  gallery,  and  had  the  ap- 
paarance  of  one  in  that  engagement.  If  he  had  been  a  regu- 
lar minister  of  the  society,  would  not  that  have  been  sufficient 
to  disqualify  Jonathan  Taylor?  (Answer  not  heard.)  Then, 
because  he  may  not  be  censured,  except  in  his  own  meeting, 
no  matter  how  immoral  he  is?  (Not  understood.)  Is  not  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  in  itself,  supreme  and  independent  of  other 
Yearly  Meetings?  It  has  the  privilege  of  making  certain  laws 
and  rules  of  discipline  for  itself,  yet  acknowledging  itself  a 
circumscribed  branch  of  the  general  society,  with  whom  it 
holds  correspondence,  and  receives  epistles,  with  all  other 
Yearly  Meetings  established  in  the  world. 

Has  not  David  Hilles  been  a  member  of  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings?  He  had  been,  but  was  not  at  the  time  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting.  How  was  he  deprived  of  his  situation  in  that 
meeting?  Probably  by  his  own  Quarterly  Meeting.  A  part 
of  the  persons  present,  at  the  time  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  went 
to  Short  Creek  house?  Yes,  the  society  was  excluded  at  Mount 
Pleasant,  and  went  to  Short  Creek  house.  That  building  is 
stated  to  be  45  by  70,  exclusive  of  the  shedsj  is  it  divided  into 
two  parts  for  women  and  men?  Yes,  the  length  is  divided  in 
half.  The  house  was  full.  And  how  many  were  there  outside? 
I  got  in  every  day,  and  can't  tell  how  many  there  were  outside^ 
I  do  not  know  whether  the  shed  accommodated  them.  There 
were  seats  arranged  with  boards.  I  do  not  recollect,  but  I 
suppose  they  were  10  or  15  feet  in  length;  and  there  were  two 
rows,  the  whole  width  of  the  house.  Can  you  form  any  idea 
of  the  number  of  men  outside?  I  cannot.  Should  you  suppose 
there  were  fifty?  Yes,  I  should  suppose  there  were  more  than* 
fifty. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  fVright.  — Where  your  discipline  fails  to 
provide  a  specific  rule,  how  do  you  get  along?  I  apprehend  it 
might  be  answered,  that  we  are  influenced  by  what  we  con- 
ceive to  be  the  spirit  of  the  discipline.  We  endeavour  to  make 
our  acts  in  unison  and  accordance  with  other  acts  the  most 
similar.  I  understand  you  to  say,  that  two  persons  spoke, 
when  the  proposition  for  laying  down  Concord  Monthly  Meet- 
ings was  before  the  Quarter.  About  how  many  were  there 
probably  present,  from  that  meeting  at  the  time — was  it  a  large 
meeting?  No  it  was  not  very  large.  One  objected,  and  tiie 
other  gave  the  caution  I  have  mentioned.    Do  you  know  if  the 


•J 


44 


Trial  of  Frieiiih 


miuislers  and  elders,  if  there  be  any  such  in  that  meeting, 
concurred  in  the  measure?  The  elders  did,  and  the  overseers. 
There  were  none  of  the  ministers,  acknowledged  as  such,  that 
concurred  in  the  proposition.  When  the  meeting  was  laid 
down,  did  the  representatives  from  Concord  make  any  objec- 
tion? (Answer  not  understood.)  Did  the  representatives  from 
any  other  meeting  make  objection?  No.. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Tuppan. — Did  you  say,  that  the 
elders  belonging  to  Concord  united  in  it?  I  said  so.  Do  you 
know  it,  of  your  own  knowledge?  I  think  I  do.  Do  you  re- 
collect that  one  of  the  members,  not  of  that  meeting,  said  that 
the  members  of  Concord  Meeting  had  not  a  right  to  speak?  I 
do  not. 

Isaac  Branson  affirmed. — Witness  testified  to  a  paper  which 
he  held  in  his  hand,  purporting  to  be  a  testimony  of  drsoArn- 
ment  issued  against  Isaac  James,  (a  copy  of  which  has  already 
been  given.)  Witness  said  he  offered  it  to  Isaac  James,  but  he 
refused  to  take  it:  could  not  state  the  exact  time,  but  it  was 
before  the  Yearly  Meeting  at  Mount  Pleasant.  Witness 
told  him  he  had  better  look  at  it,  he  might  not  know  what  it 
was.  He  would  not  accept  it.  He  was  also  informed  of  his 
right  to  appeal.  This  duty  was  performed  for  the  service  of 
the  meeting. 

Benjamin  W.  Ladd  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends?  I  am.  Are  you  clerk  to  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings?  No.  I  am  clerk  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  minis- 
ters and  elders,  and  have  been  for  a  number  of  years.  It  is 
considered  as  belonging  to  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  and  is  known 
as  such,  in  the  printed  discipline  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and 
the  time  and  place  of  meeting  are  known  in  the  discipline. 
Of  how  many  members  does  it  consist  ?  I  hold  in  my 
hand,  a  list  of  the  names  of  the  members  composing  that 
Yearly  Meeting.  The  whole  number  is  one  hundred  and 
thirty-ninej  all  belonging  to  this  Yearly  Meeting.  Did  you 
assemble  with  the  meeting?  We  assembled  on  the  6th  day  of 
N'inth-month,  which  was  the  Seventh-day  of  the  week  preced- 
ing the  general  meeting,  and  I  acted  as  clerk  of  the  meeting. 
Is  it  the  habit  of  that  meeting,  to  receive  reports  from  other 
meetings?  It  is,  to  receive  reports  from  the  Quarterly  Select 
Meetings  of  the  same  character,  that  is,  ministers  and  elders. 
There  were  reports  and  representatives  from  all  the  Quarterly 
Meetings.  How  long  did  you  continue  in  session?  Till  as 
late  as  the  15th  or  1 6th  of  the  month.  I  want  to  know  whether 
the  ministers  and  elders  went  with  those  who  retained  the 
meeting  house?  The  great  body  of  the  society  united  after  the 
great  disturbance,  at  Short  Creek  house;  and  aa  near  as  I  can 
tell,  only  eighteen  out  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-nine  united 
with  what  we  call  the  Separatists. 


at  Steiif/enville,  Ohio. 


4b 


Were  you  present  at  the  Yearly  Meeting  on  the  8lh  of  the 
month?  I  met  there  with  the  committee  on  Indian  concerns, 
at  8,  or  about  that  time.  The  committee  progressed  with 
business,  I  think,  till  a  little  after  9,  perhaps  a  quarter.  The 
day  was  inclement,  and  the  rain  was  falling.  The  people 
were  pressing  and  crowding  outside,  and  on  that  account  the 
committee  adjourned,  that  the  people  might  get  in.  We  ad- 
journed I  think  about  a  quarter  after  nine,  and  two  doors  were 
then  opened.  I  think  it  was  concluded  that  the  two  doors 
would  be  sufficient,  and  they  were  opened,  about  a  quarter 
after  nine,  and  the  people  assembled,  and  came  into  the  house, 
as  I  conceive,  in  a  very  disorderly  manner.  I  observed  them 
coming  in,  in  crowds,  and  distinguished  among  them  some 
that  had  been  disowned.  It  was,  by  the  time  they  were  gene- 
rally in,  10  o'clock.  The  meeting  sat  awhile,  as  it  is  usual 
to  have  a  retirement,  or  what  we  call  a  solemn  pause,  and 
frequently  preaching  or  vocal  supplication.  And  that  morn- 
ing Thomas  Shillitoe  appeared  in  supplication;  how  long 
he  was  engaged  I  cannot  say;  perhaps  thirty  minutes:  soon 
after  he  rose  from  his  knees,  and  after  a  short  pause,  Jonathan 
Taylor  was  preparing  his  papers  to  open  the  meeting,  I  dis- 
covered Israel  French.  He  began  by  stating  that  the  present 
clerk  had  disqualified  hiraself,  and  he  would  propose  that 
another  be  appointed,  or  something  to  that  effect;  the  true 
words  I  will  not  undertake  to  repeat.  By  the  time  he  had 
finished,  Jonathan  Taylor  was  prepared  to  read  our  opening 
minute,  and  stood  up  and  read  it;  and  proceeded  pretty  soon 
to  call  the  representatives.  I  am  not  sure,  that  it  was  while 
he  was  engaged,  that  some  person  named  David  Hilles  as 
clerk,  but  the  proposition  was  concurred  with  by  a  number  of 
persons.  There  was  a  burst  of  voices  immediately  uniting 
with  David  Hilles  being  clerk  of  the  meeting.  I  did  not  my- 
self consider  the  proposition  or  motion  to  be  at  all  in  order,  or 
that  it  could  at  all  be  entertained.  I  did  not  speak  to  it,  but 
several  spoke,  and  some  said  there  was  a  clerk  at  the  table.  I 
considered  that  it  was  out  of  order,  and  did  not  deserve  to  be 
noticetl  by  the  meeting. 

About  this  time,  the  assistant  clerk,  Amos  E.  Kimberley, 
read  what  we  call  the  introduction,  or  address  from  the  several 
Quarterly  Meetings,  and  the  signatures  of  the  clerks'  names 
from  at  least  four  of  the  Quarterly  Meetings.  I  think  he  men- 
tioned, that  there  was  a  copy  of  the  report  from  Redstone  Quar- 
terly Meeting,  signed  by  the  assistant  clerk.  And  the  proposition 
was  made,  whether  that  should  be  taken  as  the  report;  as  the 
one  signed  by  the  clerk,  had  not  been  delivered  by  him,  as  the 
discipline  directs,  previous  to  the  assembling  of  the  meeting. 
And  there  were,  to  my  understanding,  a  number  of  voices  in 
the  affirmative,  concurring,  that  the  report  handed  in  by  the 
6 


46 


Trial  of  Friends 


ussisUnt  clei  k,  should  be  received,  to  make  it  the  act  of  the 
meeting.  And  when  the  whole  number  were  called,  including' 
those  from  Redstone  Quarter,  I  think  all  answered  but  fivej 
for  two  of  whom,  reasons  were  rendered,  I  think  in  writing. 
And  it  was  considered  that  the  three  were  present,  and  de- 
clined embodying  themselves  with  the  meeting.  Did  you 
know  any  of  those  present?  I  think  David  Hilles  was  one, 
and  he  was  present  I  know.  And  at  the  time  the  assistant 
clerk  was  reading  the  reports,  or  introductions  and  signatures, 
those  who  favoured  David  Hilles  becoming  clerk,  were  urging 
his  coming  to  the  table;  and  they  continued  to  urge,  that  he 
should  come  to  the  table ;  and  many  of  the  members  of  the 
meeting  were  put  in  motion.  I  observed  David  Hilles — I  did 
not  see  him  when  he  started  from  his  seat,  but  I  saw  him 
coming  up  the  passage  towards  the  stove;  and  I  did  admire, 
to  see  him  use  the  exertion  which  he  did,  to  work  his  way 
through  the  crowd,  for  the  passage,  before  that  time,  was  very 
much  crowded  with  persons. 

After  David  Hilles  got  to  the  stove,  I  paid  little  attention 
to  him.  My  attention  being  to  other  parts  of  the  meeting,  I 
did  not  know  much  of  him,  till  I  saw  him  in  the  ministers' 
gallery,  between  me  and  where  the  table  had  stood.  After 
getting  there — there  was  a  time  that  he  hesitated  what  further 
to  do.  He  did  not  immediately  proceed  to  take  upon  himself 
the  office  of  clerk,  but  after  a  time,  he  did — after  a  person,  I 
think,  had  handed  him  the  drawer  of  the  table  which  had 
been  broken.  And,^I  think,  I  saw  him  writing  some  on  it, 
having  his  paper  on  the  bottom  of  the  drawer  that  belonged  to 
the  table,  before  it  was  broken.  I  think  he  wrote  some,  but  I 
am  not  positive.  He  then  stood  up,  and  read  a  minute  in  the 
usual  form,  "  at  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  held  at  Mount  Pleasant, 
the  8th  day  of  Ninth-month,  1828."  I  have  heard  something  of 
his  reading  a  similar  minute  at  the  stove;  but  if  he  did,  I  did 
not  hear  it.  But  I  heard  him  distinctly  read,  after  he  had  got 
into  the  ministers'  gallery;  and  I  oljserved,  that  David  Hilles 
had  become  a  disturber  of  the  meeting,  for  he  had  undertaken 
to  become  the  organ  of,  what  I  considered,  the  greatest  mob 
I  had  ever  witnessed. 

Pretty  soon  after  that,  I  inquired  if  Jonathan  Taylor  was  in 
the  meeting,  for  I  was  standing  on  the  seat  where  the  minis- 
ters and  elders  usually  sit,  and  I  knew  he  had  lost  his  regular 
situation.  I  inquired  if  Jonathan  Taylor  was  in  the  house.  It 
was  replied  that  he  was  in  the  house.  I  found  that  he  was 
something  between  his  usual  situation,  and  the  women's  part 
of  the  house.  After  I  found  he  was  in  the  house,  I  think  I 
proposed,  that  the  meeting  should  adjourn.  And  in  order  to 
make  it  unquestionable,  in  that  confused  state,  I  believe  I 
proposed,  that  the  representatives  should  be  called,  and  an- 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


47 


Bwer,  saying  whether  they  united  in  the  adjournment,  or  con 
sented  to  the  adjournment.  I  think  they  were  called  by  the 
assistant  clerk.  As  far  as  I  have  any  recollection,  all  that 
answered  concurred.  Were  there  a  considerable  number  that 
did  not  answer?  I  can't  say  positively,  but  my  impression  is, 
that  a  large  majority  answered  and  concurred.  The  meeting 
was  then  regularly  adjourned,  by  reading  a  minute  to  that 
effect,  to  the  10th  hour  the  next  day.  At  the  time  there  was 
a  contest  about  the  table,  a  person  at  my  left  hand,  mentioned 
something  like,  let  us  surrender,  or,  had  we  not  better  sur- 
render. I  remember  very  well,  that  Samuel  Bettle,  from  Phi- 
ladelphia, spoke  to  him,  and  said  he  had  better  be  quiet. 
After  that,  I  remained  till  the  orthodox  retired — I  was  among 
the  last,  and  observed  that  person  continue  with  those  that 
remained,  and  that  person  was  professing  to  be  orthodox;  but 
he  was,  in  fact,  one  of  the  party  that  was  struggling  for  the 
house,  and  he  cemained  with  the  company. 

As  to  the  number  that  withdrew,  and  remained,  it  is  con- 
jecture; but  if  I  were  to  express  an  opinion,  I  should  say,  that 
at  least  two-thirds  retired.  I  went  round  and  took  a  delibe- 
rate view  of  the  women  that  remained,  and  I  saw  them  engaged 
at  the  south-east  part  of  their  apartment;  and  there  was  not  as 
large  a  number  of  women  as  men.  I  do  not  think  their  num- 
ber exceeded  one-fourth.  Did  you  feel  any  thing  like  alarm 
at  the  galleries  falling?  I  did;  and  I  had  as  much  right  to  be 
alarmed  as  amy  body,  for  I  was  sitting  under  the  sounding 
board.  I  felt  some  alarm  and  some  consternation.  But  I 
took  as  deliberate  a  view  as  could  be  expected,  under  such 
circumstances,  and  saw  nothing  giving  way;  I  removed  very 
little,  and  then  remained  till  all  was  over.  Did  the  body  of 
men  move  up  simultaneously,  at  the  time  the  great  scuffle 
took  place?  I  had  been  shoved  out  of  my  place  towards  the 
east,  and  was  neap  the  centre,  on  a  short  bench  that  holds  but 
three  persons.  I  will  state  how  I  lost  my  seat.  I  discovered 
over  the  head  of  Thomas  Shillitoe,  who  sat  at  my  left  hand, 
Isaac  James  coming  up,  and  when  I  saw  him  coming  up  over 
the  three  seats  below  me,  and  over  the  heads  of  those  that  sat 
on  these  seats,  and  when  coming  over  the  last,  I  stepped  upon 
my  seat,  and  put  my  hands  upon  him,  and  did  for  a  time  en- 
deavour to  prevent  him  from  coming  over.  He  was  sweating, 
and  seemed  as  it  he  had  used  great  exertion;  but  his  strength 
was  still  sufficient  to  overcome  mine,  and  he  was  soon  over  in 
the  ministers'  gallery,  and  made  his  way  to  the  table.  I  do 
not  know  what  become  of  him  after  that,  for  I  could  not  see, 
or  know  but  little  about  it,  as  between  me  and  the  table,  were 
several  periions  that  never  before  had  a  place  in  the  minis- 
ters' gallery,  and  they  were  striving  to  obtain  the  table.  Did 
they  move  simultaneously?  They  did,    They  appeared  to  have. 


48 


Trial  of  Friends 


ill  view,  to  obtain  the  place  that  Jonathan  Taylor  had  occupied 
— that  seemed  to  be  the  great  object.  I  considered  myself  at 
liberty  to  oppose  Isaac  James  from  coming  into  the  ministers' 
gallery,  as  he  had  no  right  in  the  house.  He  had  no  right 
in  the  meeting,  and  no  right  to  be  there.  I  was  acquainted 
with  the  statute  law,  protecting  religious  societies;  and  knew, 
that  in  our  discipline,  it  is  made  the  duty  of  elders,  particu- 
larly, to  see  that  our  meetings  for  discipline  are  select;  and 
that  persons  disowned,  and  those  Avho  have  never  had  a  right, 
shall  not  be  present  in.  these  meetings.  And  I  considered 
myself  justified,  in  opposing  Isaac  James  in  coming  there; 
and  should  have  considered  myself  authorized,  had  I  possessed 
the  power,  to  remove  him  out  of  the  house. 

How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  the  society?  I  was 
raised  a  member.  Was  the  conduct  of  these  people  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  mode  of  the  society?  I  never  saw  any  thing 
of  the  kind;  it  was  more  like  a  mob,  in  character  and  appear- 
ance, than  like  a  religious  assembly.  Who  are  entitled  to  set 
in  the  ministers'  gallery?  In  the  first  place,  we  give  place  to 
strange  ministers;  in  the  second  place,  to  other  approved 
ministers;  and  if  more  room  than  that  remains  unoccupied, 
the  elders  mix  with  them,  in  occupying  the  highest  scat.  Is 
it  not  a  universal  observance,  to  go  through  the  ile,  instead 
of  climbing  over  the  bench  railings?  I  never  saw  a  person  in 
a  religious  meeting,  attempt  to  come  up  in  that  way  before. 
Was  there  no  other  question  than  that  of  Israel  French  before 
the  meeting?  I  did  not  consider  that  in  order;  neither  did 
the  body  of  representatives  consider  it  a  subject  submitted 
to  the  meeting.  Was  it  acted  upon  in  the  usual  way?  It  was 
not.  I  consider  the  whole  proceeding  entirely  irregular.  Do 
you  recollect  whether  Isaac  James,  or  David  Hilles,  took  hold 
of  the  table?    I  do  not,  there  were  too  many  between  us. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Tnppan. — Do  you  not  know,  that 
David  Hilles  did  not  take  hold  of  the  table?  I  do  not.  Did 
you  ever  see  the  steps,  leading  to  the  ministers'  gallery,  occu- 
pied by  a  dense  mass  of  people  before  meeting — as  thick  as 
they  were  at  this  meeting?  I  think  I  never  did.  I  never  saw 
the  house  so  much  crowded.  How  many  persons  were  engag- 
ed in  removing  the  table,  on  the  part  of  those  you  call  Hicks- 
ites?  I  do  not  know  particularly,  because  I  did  not  attend  to 
the  transactions  at  the  table.  When  the  attempt  was  made  to 
bring  Hilles  to  the  table,  did  not  the  orthodox  rise  up?  I  be- 
lieve those  who  had  taken  their  seats  in  the  early  part  of  the 
meeting,  on  the  stairs,  generally  rose  up.  Well,  did  they  not 
push  back?  I  think  they  did  at  least  stand  firmly.  Quite  as 
much  as  was  proper  for  men  of  your  religious  sentiments? 
Could  Mr.  Hilles  have  got  up  to  the  place  of  the  clerk,  with- 
out removing  some  of  these  men?    It  would  be  almost  impos- 


at  Sieubenvllte,  Ohio. 


49 


sible,  and  I  admired  at  the  attempt;  the  men  standing  in  the 
passage  formed  a  body  so  dense,  that  it  did  appear  to  me  al- 
most impossible.  You  thought  the  fortification  impregnable? 
You  did  not  know  Hilles  to  be  whefe  they  were  engaged  in  re- 
moving the  table?  I  cannot  say.  Was  it  not  about  an  equal 
match  for  strength  on  each  side,  and  was  there  not  as  much 
force  used  in  the  gallery,  as  by  those  who  made  the  attack? 
I  cannot  say  positively. 

You  have  said,  that  you  considered  the  motion  made  by  Mr. 
French  out  of  order;  was  not  Mr.  French  a  regular  member? 
I  did  not  think  him  a  regular  member.  Though  he  was  not  dis- 
owned nor  under  dealing?  He  had  attended  many  private 
meetings  and  conferences  of  what  we  call  the  Hicksite  party. 
He  had  become  doubtful  in  his  faith  and  practice?  Yes,  he 
had  in  our  meetings  given  frequent  evidence,  that  he  was 
not  exactly  one  with  us.  Is  not  a  member  of  your  society 
considered  a  member  till  he  is  under  dealing?  Yes.  Then  he 
was  a  member,  and  had  a  right  to  be  there,  and  make  a  pro- 
position? Yes,  if  in  order;  and  if  out  of  order,  it  must  meet 
that  respect  it  might  seem  to  deserve.  In  Ohio  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, are  not  all  the  members  on  an  equality,  as  to  right,  or 
have  you  any  set  of  men  who  have  a  right  to  dominion  over 
others?  Not  absolute  dominion,  but  there  is  a  certain  prefer- 
ence to  be  given  towards  years,  and  to  some,  more  than  to 
others;  for  some  do  manifest  that  they  have  by  life  and  con- 
versation, attained  to  a  higher  religious  growth;  and  they  are, 
of  course,  entitled  to  more  respect  than  those  who  have  walk- 
ed disorderly.  How  do  you  determine  this;  have  you  scales 
to  weigh  them?  We  weigh  them  in  our  own  minds.  As 
to  weight  of  character;  you  speak  of  your  own  estimate — 
how  is  it  with  others?  I  have  understood,  that  when  a  person 
is  a  member  of  your  society,  he  has  aright  to  attend  the  Year- 
ly Meeting,  and  a  right  to  be  heard  there — I  also  understand 
from  you,  that  some  members  have  move  weight  than  others, 
more  religious  experience,  and  that  the  sentiments  of  some 
have  more  influence  than  others — Is  it  because  they  have 
more  influence  with  you,  or  is  it  their  right?  Is  there  a  legal 
right  to  more  influence?  As  to  the  term  legal,  we  do  not  ge- 
nerally apply  it  in  a  religious  point  of  view. 

Are  there  any  number  of  members,  whose  voices  would  have 
more  weight  than  the  voices  of  an  equal  number  of  other  mem- 
bers? Certainly,  in  matters  under  consideration  in  a  meeting 
of  discipline,  the  opinions  or  sentiments  of  some  individuals 
do  weigh  more  than  those  of  others.  As  in  an  assembly  of 
men  of  different  ages,  for  any  purpose,  the  aged  men  have 
more  respect  shown  them  than  others.  I  have  described  it  in 
a  previous  answer,  that  those  who  have  attained  to  greater 
religious  experience,  are  entitled  to  more  respect,  and  their 


50 


Trial  of  Friends 


opinions  to  more  weight.  How  is  this  fact  to  be  known  by 
the  meeting?  It  is  understood  by  their  lives  and  conversation. 
In  taking  a  question,  if  there  were  twenty  men,  of  great  re- 
ligious experience,  whose  lives  had  placed  them  on  this  con- 
spicuous ground,  opposed  to  forty  others,  would  the  twenty 
outweigh  the  forty?  It  would  depend  upon  who  the  forty  were; 
if  they  had  no  weight  of  character  and  experience,  the  twenty 
would  outweigh  them,  and  were  I  the  clerk,  I  should  so  con- 
sider it.  The  clerks  would  pay  more  deference  to  the  twenty, 
than  to  the  forty?  The  clerks  are  generally  chosen  for  their 
qualifications,  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office.  Would  it 
not  then  depend  on  the  character  and  qualifications  of  the 
clerk:  if  the  clerk  should  be  with  the  forty,  then  they  would 
have  the  greatest  weight?  If,  in  his  opinion,  they  deserved 
more  respect.  Then  the  clerk  is  not  bound  by  the  majority  ? 
Never  in  any  instance.  The  clerk  is  never  bound  to  respect 
the  majority  of  members  in  attendance.  But  when  driven  to 
the  necessity  of  deciding  on  any  subject,  in  a  religious  meet- 
ing?— That  never  has  been  the  case  until  this  unhappy  differ- 
ence; but  when  driven  to  that  necessity,  as  clerk  of  the  meet- 
ing, I  should  look  to  the  representatives;  but  we  were  never 
driven  to  the  necessity  of  calling  the  yeas  and  nays,  but  in  the 
one  instance.  If  I  understand  you  now,  it  is  a  matter  that  the 
clerk  has  to  judge  of,  and  the  clerk  has  the  right  to  decide? 
It  has  always  rested  with  the  clerk.  He  has  a  right  to  collect 
the  sense  of  the  meeting  in  the  best  way  he  can,  and  to  record 
it.  If  it  were  necessary  to  decide  upon  a  subject,  I  would 
look  to  the  representatives;  and  then,  I  do  not  see  how 
I  could  avoid  looking  to  the  numbers.  The  meeting  has  no 
control  over  the  clerk,  about  what  the  clerk  sets  down;  whe- 
ther agreed  to  by  a  majority  or  minority  of  members,  it  gOes 
for  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  Did  you  ever  know  any  case 
carried,  unless  there  was  a  clear  majority  in  favour  of  it  ? 
As  to  majority,  we  have  never  looked  to  it.  Did  you  ever 
know  a  subject  carried,  when  there  appeared  to  be  the  great- 
est portion  disagreeing  with  it?  I  cannot  speak  of  an  instance 
where  a  question  w^s  recorded  as  carried,  when  a  majority 
appeared  opposed  to  it.  I  have  hardly  ever  seen  it  the  case, 
where  a  number  of  respectable  individuals,  or  persons  of  reli- 
gious experience,  expressed  a  sentiment,  that  members  of  less 
experience  would  object  to  the  opinion  of  such.  They  have 
always  heretofore  acquiesced,  or  submitted,  or  condescended: 
but  still,  if  the  majority  should  be  in  opposition,  the  clerk 
must  record  against  them. 

When  a  man  standing  as  Mr.  French  did — when  a  member 
makes  a  motion  in  a  Yearly  Meeting,  has  it  not  been  usual  for 
his  proposition  to  be  heard?  I  never  knew  a  proposition  so  out 
of  order.    Was  that  not  a  (juestion  to  determine,  and  how 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


bt 


were  the  meeting  to  act?  I  suppose  if  a  thousand  persons  had 
been  present,  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  would  not  have  been  the 
whole  body?  If  the  Yearly  Meeting  assembles  and  has  no 
clerk,  or  the  clerk  is  disqualified;  is  it  not  in  the  power  of  that 
meeting  to  appoint  a  clerk?  It  may  be  allowed,  that  if  the 
clerk  were  not  present,  it  might  be  proper  for  a  member  to 
name  a  person  for  clerk,  and  if  agreed  to  by  the  meeting,  in- 
cluding the  representatives,  he  would  be  the  clerk;  but  if  a 
difficulty  occurred,  it  would  require  the  representatives.  Does 
the  discipline  require  any  such  thing,  or  was  there  any  refe- 
rence to  representatives,  when  Taylor  was  appointed?  I  was 
not  at  the  meeting.  Did  you  ever  know  a  meeting  to  adjourn, 
by  calling  over  the  roll  of  representatives,  and  taking  their 
sense  upon  the  subject?  I  never  did;  but  the  reasonableness  of 
the  thing  occurred  to  me.  I  never  before  saw  such  necessity 
for  it.  Here  a  proposition  was  made  for  an  adjournment,  the 
representatives  were  named,  and  united  with  it,  before  the 
clerk  drew  up,  or  read  the  adjourned  minute?  The  clerk  had 
no  power  to  do  it,  without  being  united  in  by  the  meeting. 

If  the  clerk  had  not  been  present  on  Second-day  morning, 
and  if  no  assistant  clerk  had  been  there,  how  would  you  have 
opened  the  meeting?  I  suppose  a  person  might  have  been 
named,  and  if  the  proposition  had  been  united  with  by  the  re- 
presentatives in  attendance,  he  might  have  acted.  Are  the 
representatives  ever  called  for,  separate  from  others?  There 
never  has  been  an  instance  of  it,  except  in  the  case  of  clerks. 
You  say  a  clerk  must  be  appointed,  if  none  be  present,  and  that 
this  must  be  the  first  act  of  the  meeting — that  they  could  not 
proceed  without  a  clerk,  unless  the  representatives  chose  to 
collect  together,  in  some  part  of  the  house,  or  to  retire,  and 
agree  on  some  one?  But  suppose  the  great  majority  of  the 
meeting  should  be  of  opinion,  that  the  clerk  is  disqualified  to 
act;  is  it  not  in  the  power  of  the  meeting  to  determine  the  fact? 
It  is  a  matter  of  opinion;  I  have  never  seen  such  a  case.  Who 
could  determine  it,  and  who  is  to  decide  but  the  meeting?  I 
should  think  in  every  instance  of  that  kind,  it  must  be  for  some 
previous  conduct  or  offence,  and  that  something  would  be  done 
before;  I  have  never  known  a  Yearly  Meeting  to  take  cogni- 
zance of  such  a  case. 

You  admit  that  the  Yearly  Meeting^is  the  superior,  govern- 
ing power  of  the  society  within  its  own  bounds,  that  it  does 
make  its  own  rules  and  regulations,  that  it  has  the  power  as 
the  supreme  ecclesiastical  body  of  the  society,  that  it  is  go- 
verned by  its  own  rules,  and  that  these  rules  are  in  the  disci- 
pline: but  it  now  appears  there  are  some  rules  that  have  been 
agreed  on  several  years  ago,  which  arc  not  embodied  in  the 
discipline?  But  all  rules  of  discipline,  whether  in  the  book  or 
not,  are  considered  as  binding  on  the  society,  and  they  are 


52 


Trial  of  f  riends 


sent  down  to  the  subordinate  meetings,  only  that  they  may 
know  the  changes  that  have  taken  place.  And  I  do  not  recol- 
lect to  have  heard  any  objections.  I  have  heard  nothing  of 
the  kind.  Did  it  not  create  considerable  disturbance  for  the 
assistant  clerk  to  go  on  calling  the  representatives,  when  a 
proposition  was  before  the  meeting  to  make  a  new  clerk?  He 
was  reading,  and  kept  on. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Wright. — When  David  Hilles  was  read- 
ing, did  he  stand  up  or  keep  his  seat?  I  have  heard — (objected 
to.)  I  suppose  children  have  a  right  to  attend,  as  soon  as  they 
are  capable  of  being  introduced  into  the  meeting?  They  may 
attend  all  our  meetings,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest.  But  I 
have  never  known  a  case  where  children  were  requested  to  ex- 
press an  opinion;  nor  have  I  ever  known  young  men  to  inter- 
fere; although  they  are  understood  to  have  equal  rights  with 
the  rest.  You  would  of  course  take  the  opinion  of  Judge 
Tappan,  sooner  than  that  of  one  who  has  no  experience? 
(Reply  not  understood.)  Did  you  hear  Isaac  James  make  any 
request  of  the  orthodox,  to  go  out  of  the  house?  I  did  not. 

Lewis  Walker  affirmed. — (Before  this  witness  proceeded  with 
his  testimony,  it  was  stated  that  Parker  Askew,  a  witness  in 
attendance  on  the  part  of  the  defendants,  was  under  the  neces- 
sity of  returning  home,  and  it  would-  be  a  favour  if  his  testi- 
mony could  be  received  at  that  time,  which  was  agreed  to.) 

Parker  Askew  affirmed  on  the  part  of  the  defendants. — Witness 
stated,  that  he  was  appointed  clerk  of  Stillwater  Quarter,  at 
its  last  meeting,  the  records  of  which  he  produced  and  iden- 
tified. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Wright. — When  were  you  appointed 
clerk?  At  the  last  Quarter,  on  the  27th  of  Eighth-month  last. 
How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  that  Quarter?  Ever 
since  it  has  been  a  Quarter,  perhaps  seven  years,  I  am  not 
sure.  Was  Eighth-month  last,  the  regular  time  for  appoint- 
ing clerk  in  that  Quarter?  Clerks  arc  removed  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  meeting;  they  are  not  stationary.  I  think  it  was  not  the 
regular  time;  I  cannot  tell,  as  I  had  omitted  to  attend  one  or 
two  Quarters.  W as  not  the  meeting,  having  possession  of  the 
records,  then  in  session  in  the  same  house?  I  cannot  say. 
Was  not  a  body  of  men  then  acting  as  a  meeting,  and  did  they 
not  claim  to  be  the  Quarterly  Meeting?  I  was  not  in  the  meeting 
till  my  name  was  called.  I  was  upon  the  step,  when  my  name 
was  proposed.  I  think  the  former  clerk  was  there;  I  did  not 
see  him;  a  number  of  persons  were  standing,  s*o  that  1  appre- 
hend the  view  of  the  clerk  was  hid  from  me.  Did  you  not 
know  that  the  clerk  had  been  proceeding?  1  do  not  know  that 
there  was  any  such  thing.  Was  there  not  another  Quarterly 
Meeting  organized  in  the  house?  We  believed  that  they  had  so 
far  deviated  from  discipline,  that  they  were  not  entitled  to  that 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


53 


character.  We  occupied  the  south-east  part  of  the  house. 
Then  your  Quarterly  Meeting  separated  themselves  from  the 
others?  We  did  not  mix  witli  them,  more  than  they  mixed 
with  us.  Who  has  possession  of  the  records?  We  have  never 
had  possession  of  them,  or,  I  have  not. 

Of  what  Monthly  Meetings  does  that  Quarter  consist?  It  was 
represented,  I  think,  by  Plainfield,  Stillwater  and  Deerfield. 
Were  there  no  others?  There  was  one  called  Somerset,  but  I 
think  it  sent  no  representatives.  Jlave  you  still  the  same 
Monthly  Meetings,  or  are  there  others  added?  I  think  there 
were  no  others.  Is  there  not  a  half  Monthly  Meeting,  that 
meets  alternately  at  two  places?  There  is  such  a  meeting  as 
you  allude  to.  Then  the  whole  proceedings  of  your  Quarterly 
Meeting  were  in  the  corner  of  the  room.  The  voices  of  those 
that  spoke  to  business,  appeared  to  be  generally  in  that  part 
of  the  house;  and  I  think  I  may  remark,  that  Friends  were  ex- 
tremely cautious,  and. rather  more  quiet  than  usual.  I  allude 
to  those  that  transacted  business  in  the  meeting  of  which  I 
was  clerk.  I  do  not  know  that  I  heard  the  representatives 
called  by  the  other  party.  In  what  way  does  a  Quarterly 
Meeting  acknowledge  a  Monthly  Meeting,  when  they  meet? 
Is  it  by  their  representatives?  In  setting  them  up  they  are 
known  by  that  medium,  that  is,  by  their  representatives.  Is 
there  any  other  way  in  which  a  Monthly  Meeting  can  be  repre- 
sented? My  opinion  is,  that  if  every  representative  should 
fail,  through  high  water,  indisposition,  or  otherwise,  the 
Quarter  could  still  transact  its  business,  the  reports  might  be 
sent.  Have  you  ever  known  a  Quarter  held  in  any  other  way 
than  by  receiving  reports  through  representatives?  I  know 
there  have  been  many  omissions,  and  yet  the  Quarters  have 
been  authorized  to  proceed.  Your  practice  has  been  to  ap- 
point delegates?  Yes.  You  had  no  delegates  or  reports  from 
Somerset?  I  believe  not.  Has  any  measure  been  taken  to  call 
them  to  an  account  for  neglect?  In  forming  a  minute,  there 
was  mention  made,  that  there  was  a  Monthly  Meeting  not  re- 
presented. There  was  no  call  for  delegates?  I  think  not.  To 
what  Monthly  Meeting  do  you  belong?  I  belong  to  Plainfield. 
Do  you  know  where  Stillwater  Monthly  Meeting  is  held?  I 
do  not  know.  Was  Plainfield  the  only  Monthly  Meeting,  or 
were  there  not  representatives  from  another?  No,  there  is  but 
one  meeting  acknowledged  there,  by  our  orthodox  brethren. 
Have  they  not  possession  of  the  records  kept  in  Stillwater 
Meeting?  We  have  them  not.  We  know  there  is  a  division 
in  the  society,  Stillwater  is  divided,  and  the  other  party 
have  the  records.  Somerset  was  not  represented.  As  to 
Deerfield,  I  know  not  as  a  matter  of  fact,  whether  that  meet- 
ing is  held  by  both  parties  in  the  same  house.  Which  party 
holds  the  meeting  in  the  old  place?  I  believe  it  is  the  orthodox. 
7 


54 


Trial  of  Friends 


Those  representatives  who  answered  to  your  call,  wera  repre- 
sentatives of  that  division  of  Quakers  called  Hicksites?  (Re- 
ply not  understood.)  When  you  met,  did  you  examine  the 
minutes  of  the  precedini^  meeting?  They  kept  possession  of 
the  minutes',  and  we  made  no  inquiry. 

When  you  were  called  to  the  place  of  clerk,  did  you  call  on 
Garretson  to  give  you  the  minutes?  No — we  proceeded  in  our 
business;  and  never  have  made  a  demand  for  the  records,  as 
yet.  When  I  was  appointed  clerk,  I  heard  no  opposition  at  all. 
Can  you  state  the  manner  and  circumstances  attending  the 
division  in  this  Quarter?  I  know  that  some  measures  have 
been  taken  to  get  the  census,  but  I  am  not  in  possession  of  the 
facts  myself;  I  do  not  know,  only  from  common  report;  I  did 
not  attend  the  Yearly  Meeting.  I  never  was  clerk  of  a  Quar- 
terly Meeting  before,  but  have  been  assistant  clerk.  Do  you 
know  whether  the  society  have,  heretofore,  put  questions  by 
vote?  My  opinion  is  formed  in  this  way — I  have  never  seen 
a  measure  carried,  when  two,  or  three,  or  four  members,  walk- 
ing in  good  life  and  conversation,  were  opposed  to  it;  and,  I 
believe,  I  never  did,  where  one  was  opposed,  and  continued  to 
objectj  but  have  known  cases,  where  the  business  has  been 
laid  over,  to  pay  respect  to  such  an  individual.  But  have  you 
known  it,  where  the  individual  was  not  of  so  respectable  a 
character?  I  do  not  know  such  a  case ;  we  have  respect  to  the 
standing,  and  also  to  numbers;  generally,  there  is  submission. 
I  never  knew  the  sense  of  a  meeting  taken  by  vote.  I  was  be- 
fore the  step  at  the  door,  and  it  was  announced,  that  they  were 
about  going  to  business.  I  advanced  from  my  position,  and 
stepped  up  on  the  step.  The  meeting  appeared  to  be  quiet; 
and  while  on  the  top  step,  and  partly  in  the  house,  my  name 
was  proposed,  and  acquiesced  in.  The  call  was  made  for  me, 
and  I  advanced.  The  clerk  is  the  one  who  had  before  acted, 
and  with  whom  I  had  transacted  business.  When  your  meet- 
ings become  select,  the  shutters  are  usually  closed — Did  you 
see  them  opened  or  shut?  (Reply  not  understood.)  The  disci- 
pline requires,  that  they  should  be  shut  when  the  meeting  goes 
into  business.  I  do  not  think  they  had  proceeded  in  business, 
when  I  entered.  My  brother  came  to  me,  and  said  the  meet- 
ing was  going  to  business,  and  requested  me  to  come  in.  I 
went  to  the  door,  and  my  name  was  called.  I  believe  the  par- 
titions were  down.  Did  you  not  know,  before  your  brother 
called  you,  that  a  new  clerk  would  be  appointed,  if  they  did 
not  acknowledge  your  rights?  We  certainly  did  intend  to 
maintain  our  rights.  It  was  understood,  by  you,  that  if  you 
were  not  received,  and  acknowledged  by  the  orthodox,  you 
would  open  a  meeting  of  your  own  ?  It  was  my  understand- 
ing, that  if  we  were  not  acknowledged,  we  should  go  on  to 
open  a  meeting.    We  expected  to  be  represented,  if  not 


4 


at  SteubenvilU,  Ohio. 


55 


acknowledged  by  the  former  clerk.  I  heard  mention  made, 
that  there  was  a  report,  which  it  was  supposed  would  not  be 
received  by  the  orthodox  clerk.  It  was  also  added,  that  if  it 
were  not  received  by  him,  a  clerk  would  be  appointed  that 
would  receive  it.  Did  you  hear  mention  of  any  report,  ex- 
cept that  of  Plainfield.''  I  did  not.  Was  there  any  reply  from 
the  clerk?  There  was  not.  I  think  I  h6ard  no  voice  in 
reply.  Then  that  was  the  only  thing  done  by  the  orthodox 
party,  to  induce  your  meeting  to  set  up  another  meeting?  I 
know  of  no  other.  They  did  not  accept  the  report?  No,  for 
we  kept  it  in  our  possession.  They  did  not  get  it?  No,  it  must 
have  been  refused.  I  do  not  know  of  its  being  handed.  I 
did  not  see  the  person,  but  heard  words..  I  did  not  hear  the 
motion.  Was  there  any  proposition  made  to  the  clerk,  to  re- 
ceive the  report,  or  was  there  any  refusal  heard,  in  reply?  This 
laying  down  of  Plainfield  Meeting,  claimed  by  the  orthodox, 
is  not  acknowledged  by  us.  Is  it  not  required  by  the  discipline, 
that  the  reports  of  Monthly  Meetings  be  handed  to  the  clerk, 
before  the  meeting  commences,  that  he  may  enter  them  upon 
the  minutes.''  I  think  not — it  frequently  happens.  I  have  been 
an  assistant  clerk,  and  have  seen  them  handed  in  at  the  table. 
Is  it  not  a  common  practice,  to  hand  them  in  before  the  meet- 
ing? I  don't  think  it  universal — it  is  frequently  done;  and  I 
have  frequently  seen  them  handed  in  by  different  representa- 
tives. Do  you  know  an  instance,  where  the  representatives 
have  arrived  in  time  to  hand  the  reports  to  the  clerk,  that 
they  have  not  done  it?  I  have  known  it  in  a  number  of  in- 
stances. I  think  I  do  not  recollect  a  single  Quarterly  Meeting, 
where  all  have  been  handed  in.  I  know  that  our  clerk,  gene- 
rally speaking,  form.s  the  summary  to  these  reports  in  the 
meeting,  perhaps  as  often  that  way  as  any  other  way;  and  after 
they  are  prepared,  the  meeting  can  either  adopt  or  reject  them. 
You  say,  that  you  believe  it  would  be  desirable  for  the  clerk 
to  have  these  reports?  I  think  it  has  been  as  frequently  other- 
wise. Is  there  any  difference  between  a  common  Quarterly 
Meeting,  and  the  one  preceding  the  Yearly  Meeting?  There 
are  a  number  of  queries  read.  We  have  three  queries  that  are 
answered  quarterly,  and  nine  annually.  Was  there  any  dif- 
ference in  the  naming  these  queries  at  this  Quarter,  which 
■was  the  one  preceding  the  Yearly  Meeting,  or  did  you  not 
know,  it  was  the  design  of  your  party  to  go  to  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, to  depose  the  clerk,  and  take  possession?  I  never  under-, 
stood  so. 

Were  you  present  at  the  conference  that  was  held  at  Plain«< 
field,  where  Amos  Peaslee  and  others  attended?  I  was.  Was 
there  any  proposition  there  about  taking  possession?  I  think 
there  was  something  mentioned  about  the  Yearly  Meeting,  but 
whether  it  was  the  Yearly  Meeting,  or  Quarterly  Meeting,  I 


56 


Trial  of  Friends 


cannot  tell.  The  subject  respecting  our  Quarterly  Meeting 
was  agitatedjbut  I  am  not  sure  that  any  mention  was  made  about 
the  Yearly  Meeting.  Was  there  any  preconcert  about  or- 
ganizing this  Quarterly  Meeting?  There  were  Friends  there 
from  different  parts  of  the  Quarter;  there  was  no  arrange- 
ment, farther  than  that  we  should  go  as  heretofore,  and  that 
■we  would  maintain  our  rights;  which  is  what  might  be  expect- 
ed; that  members  would  maintain  their  rights  and  privi- 
leges, being  conscious  that  they  had  not  departed  from  the 
discipline.  Were  you  present  when  Plainfield  Monthly  Meet- 
ing was  laid  down.''  I  was.  Was  there  any  resistance?  There 
was  a  strong  opposition,  and  little  acquiescence,  except  by 
three  or  four.  Then  you  count  all  those  that  did  not  speak  as 
on  your  side?  Is  it  the  practice  in  your  society  for  any  consi- 
derable number  to  speak  together?  Frequently  there  are  a 
great  many,  and  if  there  is  no  opposition,  we  take  it  for  the 
voice  of  the  meeting.  There  was  a  minute  made,  certifying 
that  part  of  the  order  laying  down  the  meeting,  was,  that  it  be 
attached  to  Stillwater.  I  am  not  sure  how  many  members  went 
to  Stillwater,  but  they  were  a  very  small  proportion.  I  can 
speak  pretty  positively,  that  I  think  there  were  about  a  hun- 
dred families  in  all,  and  I  do  not  believe,  that  more  than  five  or 
six,  or  six  or  seven  families,  at  farthest,  went  to  Stillwater.  I 
should  not  think  that  one-tenth  had  gone  there.  Do  you  know 
of  any  minute  that  you  haA'e  made,  mentioning  the  separation 
of  the  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meetings?  I  know  of  none. 
Have  you  not  entered  a  minute  there,  that  you  will  not  com- 
mune with  the  orthodox,  as  they  have  separated  from  you? 
We  rejected,  in  toto,  the  whole  arrangement  of  the  Stillwater 
Quarter.  Is  there  any  minute,  to  your  knowledge,  of  the 
decision  of  the  meeting,  as  to  those  meetings  which  have  se- 
parated? When  Peaslee  was  present,  were  there  persons  pre- 
sent from  the  different  meetings  within  the  Quarter?  I  think 
there  were.  Did  you  ever  know  such  a  meeting?  No,  I  never 
knew  such  a  meeting  before;  but  extraordinary  cases  require 
extraordinary  measures.  We  knew  that  things  had  been 
adopted  of  which  we  did  not  approve,  and  this  conference  was 
invited,  in  consequence  of  the  imposition,  and  in  anticipation 
of  future  measures.  What  was  the  result  of  that  conference? 
The  result  was,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  situation  of  our 
Monthly  Meeting,  and  other  Monthly  Meetings,  which  were 
not  acknowledged  by  the  Quarter,  we  would  go  to  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting  and  maintain  our  rights.  Was  there  any  thing 
that  connected  itself  with  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  think  not. 
I  believe  it  was  advised  to  attend  as  usual.  The  object  was, 
as  I  have  mentioned,  to  know  the  real  sentiments  of  Friends 
in  our  Quarterly  Meeting.  Did  you  hear  Isaac  James  talk 
any  thing  upon  this  subject?    I  never  did. 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


57 


(The  examination  of  this  witness  continued  for  about  twen- 
ty minutes,  but  for  the  want  of  light,  it  being  in  the  dusk  of  the 
evening,  we  were  unable  to  take  notes  during  this  part  of  the 
examination.  The  prominent  object  of  inquiry,  however, 
appeared  to  be,  to  establish  the  fact,  that  a  conspiracy  was 
entered  into  by  the  Hicksites,  previous  to  the  Yearly  Meeting, 
in  relation  to  the  measures  to  be  pursued  on  that  occasion^  but 
the  fact  was  not  estal)lished.) 

Court  adjourned  to  9  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Friday  the  1 7th,  9  o'clock. 

Lewis  Walker  called.  (This  witness  was.  affirmed  last  even- 
ing, but  gave  place  to  Parker  Askew,  as  before  stated.) 

Questioned  by  Mr.  JFrighi  for  the  prosecution.— Are  you  trea- 
surer of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting?  Yes.  Were  you  present  at 
Ohio  Yearly  Meeting?  I  was  not  present  on  Second-day,  from 
the  time  they  met,  till  after  they  adjourned.  To  what  party 
did  you  render  your  account,  or  wliich  do  you  esteem  the  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting?  (Objected  to.)  I  was  appointed,  perhaps 
six  or' seven  years  ago,  to  the  office  of  treasurer,  and  have  con- 
tinued ever  since;  and  my  settlement  this  year  was  with  the 
committee  of  those  called  orthodox.  I  am  a  member  of  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings,  which  belongs  to  the  same  party  that 
I  profess  to  belong  to.  I  am  clerk  of  the  committee  on  Indian 
concerns.  During  the  time  of  the  meeting  in  1826,  there  was 
an  alteration  made  as  to  the  time  of  holding  our  meetings;  and 
it  was  concluded  to  meet  on  Second-day  afternoon.  I  had 
forgotten  the  time,  and  stated  that  it  was  8  o'clock,  and  a  num- 
ber met  with  me  under  an  impression  that  that  was  the  time. 

The  Committee  for  Sufferings  belong  to  the  orthodox  party 
•—the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  to  which  I  belong.  I  suppose 
that  all  who  are  now  members  are  of  the  orthodox  party?  Not 
all,  perhaps  three  or  four  out  of  forty-six  are  not.  Did  you 
hear  any  thing  of  those  persons,  having  no  authority  there, 
being  prohibited  ?  There  were  a  number  round  the  door,  and 
they  were  told  that  a  committee  was  in  session,  and  it  would 
not  be  convenient  for  them  to  come  in.  I  went  out  before  the 
doors  were  opened.  I  do  not  know  that  any  thing  was  done 
to  prevent  individuals  from  entering. 

How  many  belonged  to  the  Indian  committee?  It  is  a  com- 
mittee of  men  and  women — a  large  committee:  there  must  be 
of  both  sexes  as  many  as  fifty.  What  proportion  belong  to 
the  orthodox  party?  There  are  very  few  who  do  not  belong. 
Did  any  of  the  Hicksite  party  attend  that  committee?  I  be- 
lieve not,  that  morning.  Do  you  know  that  any  of  the  Hicks- 
ite party  attended  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings?  I  should  think 
none,  that  had  fairly  attached  themselves  to  that  party.  Do 
you  know  to  which  meeting  the  Indian  committee  made  their 
report?  To  our  meeting,  and  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  also. 


58 


Trial  of  Frieiids 


Do  you  know  the  situation  of  the  door  back  of  the.  clerk's 
table?  It  is  a  double  door,  similar  to  this,  in  the  court-house. 
It  formerly  opened  in,  but  it  was  found  inconvenient  to 
open  it  while  the  rncctint^  was  in  session,  because  the  seat  and 
table  were  close  to  it.  It  was,  therefore,  chani^cd,  and  hung 
so  as  to  open  out;  it  was  so  during,  the  last  Yearly  Meeting. 
There  is  a  bolt  that  fastens  one  door  at  the  bottom,  and  the 
other  is  fastened  with  a  kind  of  key  and  bar.  • 

Cross-examination. — You  speak  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings 
belonging  to  the  other  parly;  do  you  not  know  that  your  party 
had  undertaken  to  exclude  from  their  meeting,  those  who 
agreed  with  Elias  .Hicks  in  sentiment.''  I  don't  think  there 
has  been  any  case  of  exclusion,  until  they  had  been  released 
from  the  appointment  by  the  meeting  appointing  them.  There 
have  been  none,  that  I  recollect,  excluded  by  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings.  How  did  these  members  cease  to  be  members? 
Some  were,  according  to  discipline,  released  for  non-attend- 
ance; there  were  several  of  this  description.  David  Hilles' 
"was  one  whose  name  was  brouglit  forward,  and  released  by 
Redstone  Quarterly  Meeting.  Who  was  appointed  in  his 
place?    I  do  not  recollect. 

You  say  this  meeting  reported  to  that  part  of  the  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting  that  is  called  orthodox?  Do  you  know,  that  ihe  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting  chose  their  Meeting  for  Sufferings?  I  do  not 
know  what  was  transacted  in  town,  after  they  separated. 
Don't  you  know  that  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  which  re- 
ported at  Short  Creek,  were  laid  down  by  the  Yearly  Meeting 
■which  met  at  Mount  Pleasant?  I  do  not.  You  know  there 
"were  two  bodies  at  Mount  Pleasant,  tliat  went  on  and  trans- 
acted business  as  separate  meetings?  I  was  not  at  the  house 
in  Mount  Pleasant,  from  Third-day  afternoon,  till  they  ad- 
journed; I  was  at  Short  Creek  house.  There  was  a  body  of 
Friends  that  met  there,  and  we  considered  that  we  were  hold- 
ing the  Yearly  Meeting.  I  saw  a  great  many  going  to  the 
other  house;  but  I  do  not  know  what  was  done,  or  what  pro- 
portion were  at  that  place.  I  made  no  estimate.  I  know 
there  were  more  than  could  get  into  the  house  at  Short  Creek. 
No  reports  were  made  by  these  committees  till  after  the  divi- 
sion? No.  If  it  had  not  been  for  this  secession,  they  would 
have  been  made  to  the  usual  ineeting?  I  expect  that  if  the 
meeting  had  been  held  as  heretofore,  at  Mount  Pleasant,  the 
whole  would  have  been  transacted  there.  It  was  the  proper 
place  to  make  the  reports?  It  has  been  the  place,  heretofore, 
for  making  the  reports.  If  they  had  not  seceded,  the  report 
■would  have  been  made  to  the  whole  body?  To  be  sure,  if  we 
had  not  divided,  it  would  have  been  made  to  the  whole. 

Did  you  not  make  a  report,  as  ti-easurer,  to  the  Yearly 
Meeting?    A  committee  was  appointed  by  our  Yearly  Meet- 


at  Sltubenville,  Ohio. 


59 


ing,  to  settle  with  the  treasurer.  If  there  were  reports  made 
to  the  other  meeting,  I  know  nothing  of  it.  Did  you  not  meet 
with  a  committee  from  the  regular  Yearly  Meeting  house  to 
settle?  Not  to  settle — 1  might  have  had  conversation  with 
individuals  from  there.  Did  they  not  call  on  you,  as  a  com- 
mittee from  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  to  settl«?  They  did,  but 
I  thought  it  would  be  a  farce;  I  told  them  I  was  treasurer 
of  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting ;  and  if  it  would  be  any  great 
satisfaction,  I  could  tell  thcni,  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  were 
indebted  to  me,  and  that  none  had  a  right  to  settle  with  me, 
but  the  meeting  to  which  I  was  attached,  and  the  meeting  that 
appointed  me.  Were  yoii  not  appointed  by  all  the  members 
of  both  parties?  Yes.  What  right  had  you  to  attach  your- 
self to  one  party  as  treasurer?  1  could  not  attend  both,  they 
were  both  sitting  at  the  same  time. 

Were  you  at  Short  Creek  Quarterly  Meeting  on  the  27th  of 
Eleventh-month,  1827?  I  believe  I  have  attended  all  the  Quar- 
terly Meetings.  I  do  not  recollect  when  I  was  released  from 
being  clerk  of  the  Quarter.  Were  not  the  Hicksites  excluded 
from  that  committee?  I  do  not  recollect  the  particulars.  Was 
not  Israel  French  excluded  ?  I  recollect  that  Israel  French 
was  named  to  some  appointment,  and  his  name  was  taken  out. 
I  do  not  recollect  the  reasons  advanced,  but  expect  it  was  be- 
cause he  was  not  in  unity  with  one  parly  in  the  society.  I  do 
not  think  they  were  excluded  from  having  a  yoice  in  the  meet- 
ing. How  far  were  they  excluded  then?  By  their  names 
being  taken  out.  I  think  I  was  not  there.  What  is  the  cus- 
tomary way?  Some  one  names  an  individual,  and  the  clerk 
takes  his  name  down.  Israel  French  was  named  to  some  com- 
mittee, and  after  a  time,  his  name  was  erased.  Is  it  custo- 
mary? It  has  been  done  a  few  times  lately.  I  think  I  have 
observed  a  few  cases.  Don't  you  in  the  meetings  of  the  ortho- 
dox, exclude  those  from  acting  with  you,  though  not  disowned, 
who  are  inclined  to  the  opinions 'of  Elias  Hicks?  I  don't  know 
how  far  to  answer  that.  I  want  you  to  answer  it,  as  far  as 
the  truth  goes.  If  persons  are  acting  together,  they  can  act 
with  more  harmony.  Therefore,  that  there  may  be  harmony, 
and  that  you  may  act  with  one  mind,  you  silence  those  who 
do  not  think  with  you  ?  Not  exactly  so.  Do  you  not  do  it  to 
produce  unity?  A  very  few  cases  have  presented,  in  which  it 
was  considered  necessary.  But  when  it  was  necessary,  you 
have  done  it?  To  speak  of  facts,  there  have  been  a  very  few 
cases  where  we  have  been  tried  in  that  way. 

Question  by  the  Judge. — Have  any  been  excluded  from  your 
meeting,  because  they  were  Hicksites?  I  don't  know  any  case 
where  they  have. 

Were  they  not  at  that  meeting  excluded  from  having  any 
weight  in  the  meeting?    They  were  admitted  to  express  their 


60 


Trial  of  Friends 


sentiments,  but  were  not  considered  as  having  as  much  weight 
as  others.  If  they  had  been  the  greater  number,  would  you 
not  have  proceeded  without  their  concurrence?    L  cannot  say. 

Question  by  the  Judge.— How  was  it  as  to  the  fact  of  majori- 
ties at  that  meeting?    I  do  not  know. 

Was  not  advice  given  to  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  directing 
it  not  to  appoint  any  person  suspected  of  being  in  unity  with 
Elias  Hicks,  on  that  committee?  I  do  not  recollect  now.  Who 
compose  your  Monthly  Meetings?  All  within  certain  limits. 
You  consider  that  all  who  are  members,  have  a  right  to  meet 
and  express  their  sentiments,  upon  a  perfect  equality  as  to  re- 
ligious rights?  Yes.  What  composes  your  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing? It  is  composed  of  several  neighbouring  Monthly  Meet- 
ings, who  choose  delegates  from  each  Monthly  Meeting  to  at- 
tend the  Quarterly  Meeting.  All  members  are  privileged  to 
attend.  And  when  they  do  so  attend,  are.they  all  on  an  equality? 
They  are  all  privileged  to  express  their  sentiments.  None 
are  privileged  more  than  others?  I  do  not  know  that  they  are. 
We  have  nothing  which  we  would  call  an  aristocracy  in  our 
society. 

Is  there  any  difference,  in  taking  the  sentiments  of  aQiiar- 
terly  Meeting,  in  those  who  are  representatives,  and  those  who 
are  not  representatives?  I  think  I  never  observed  any  differ- 
ence. In  conducting  the  Yearly  Meeting,  the  representatives 
from  each  Quarter,  and  all  others  who  attend,  when  they  do 
attend,  are  on  the  same  equality  as  in  a  Quarterly  Meeting?  I 
should  think  so.  When  you  have  acted  as  clerk,  it  has  been 
your  duty  to  take  the  voice  of  the  meeting  collectively?  Yes. 
And  that  is  to  govern?  When  I  have  been  clerk,  I  never  found 
much  difficulty  in  determining.  Did  you  ever  set  any  thing 
down  as  the  sense  of  the  meeting,  when  the  majority  were 
against  it?  I  do  not  recollect  it.  If  there  was  much  oppo- 
sition, I  think  it  never  has  been  set  down  as  the  judgment  of 
the  meeting,  when  I  was  clerk.  How  do  you  choose  represen- 
tatives from  a  Quarterly  to  the  Yearly  Meeting?  They  are 
nominated  in  the  meeting  at  large.  Any  individual  may  name 
one  or  more,  and  when  one  is  named,  the  name  is  taken  down, 
and  generally  some  person  names  another,  and  so  on.  Then 
the  names  are  read  over,  and  if  they  answer,  they  are  consider- 
ed as  representatives. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Wright. — In  choosing  representatives, 
suppose  twice  as  many  should  be  named  as  are  necessary,  must 
you  take  the  sense  of  the  meeting?  It  is  a  case  which  I 
have  never  known  to  occur;  I  should  suppose,  that  the  meeting 
would  stop  when  they  had  enough.  I  think,  in  one  instance, 
after  a  person  was  named,  he  was  objected  to.  It  was  the 
case  of  French;  the  name  was  struck  out,  and  another  con- 
tinued.    Do  you  know  what  has  been  the  practice  of  the 


at  Steubeiiville,  Ohio. 


61 


Yearly  Meeting?  In  the  appointment  of  Jonathan  Taylor, 
when  the  clerk,  who  had  been  previously  appointed,  was  taken 
sick,  we  were  all  met  together,  representatives  and  others,  and 
there  was  not  a  voice  dissenting.  Do  you  recollect  whether 
there  was  any  opposition  to  erasing  the  name  of  Israel  French? 
I  do  not  remember. 

Do  you  say,  that  all  have  equal  rights  in  Quarterly  and 
Monthly  Meetings?  I  think  all  have  equal  rights  in  express- 
ing sentiments.  I  never  knew  any  distinction  made,  or  appeal 
to  the  representatives,  particularly,  as  having  more  power  than 
other  members. 

Cross-examination  resumed. — Do  you  consider,  that  the  repre- 
sentatives from  the  Quarterly  or  Monthly  Meetings,  have  any 
more  power  than  others?  And  if  they  have  more  power,  in  what 
does  it  consist?  I  should  give  it  as  my  opinion,  that  they  have 
no  more  power  than  others.  They  have  some  particular  du- 
ties devolving  on  them,  which  do  not  devolve  on  others.  If 
no  representatives  attended,  would  you  hold  a  meeting?  I 
suppose  there  never  has  been  a  case. 

John  Batton  affirmed. — Were  you  at  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting, 
on  Second-day  morning?  Yes.  Did  you  see  David  Hilles 
there?  Yes,  I  saw  him  start  from  his  seat,  and  go  to  take  his 
place  as  clerk.  Did  he  start  voluntarily?  David  sat  at  my 
right  hand,  and  there  was  an  invitation  for  him  to  go  forward. 
I  could  not  see  who  proposed  it;  but  a  man  came  and  told  him, 
that  he  was  proposed  as  clerk,  and  he  wished  him  to  go  to  the 
table.  He  said  no,  he  could  not  go  to  the  table,  but  if  they 
would  bring  a  table  to  him,  he  would  open  the  meeting.  The 
man  went  off.  David  said  it  was  impossible  to  get  through 
the  crowd,  and  if  he  should  get  there  they  would  not  give  up 
the  table.  Presently  James  Cope  and  Jonathan  Pierce  came 
to  him.  James  came  first,  and  said  that  he  was  named  as 
clerk,  and  they  wished  him  to  go  to  the  table.  David  said  it 
would  be  of  no  use  to  attempt  it,  for  he  could  not  get  there. 
And  while  James  was  talking,  Jonathan  Pierce  reached 
over  the  bench,  and  took  hold  of  him,  and  told  him  he  was 
named  as  clerk;  and  he  wished  him  to  go  to  the  table.  He 
parleyed  some,  but  Jonathan  said,  never  mind  that,  come  to  the 
table,  and  we  will  make  way  for  you.  Was  the  movement  si- 
multaneous? There  had  been  a  very  great  crowd,  and  they 
had  left  several  of  the  benches,  in  the  back  part  of  the  house, 
and  had  risen  up  upon  the  benches,  all  over  the  house,  as  high 
as  they  could  get;  so  that  I  could  see  no  more  of  him.  I  was 
in  the  south-cast  corner  of  the  house.  Was  this  proceeding, 
naming  him,  in  the  usual  manner  of  doing  business?  I  could 
not  hear,  for  the  tumult  and  noise.  At  the  time  they  said  he 
was  named,  there  were  many  people  upon  the  benches.  I 
heard  several  bovs  and  others  crv  out  the  same  thing,  but  I 
8 


62 


Trial  of  Friends 


could  not  tell  what  it  was.  Did  you  ever  attend  a  meeting 
before,  where  that  clamour  prevailed?    I  never  did. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Tappan.—\W \\o  was  it  that  made 
this  clamour:  was  it  the  orthodox  or  the  Hicksites?  They  were 
mixed  together  throughout  the  house.  Was  there  not  as  much 
disturbance  produced  by  the  old  clerk's  reading,  as  by  any 
thing  else?  I  could  not  tell  whether  he  was  reading,  or  doing 
any  thing.  I  heard  the  assistant's  voice  amidst  this  clamour: 
not  regularly,  but  I  could  hear  it  once  in  awhile,  and  supposed 
he  was  going  on  with  the  opening  minute. 

Did  you  see  David  Hilles  use  any  violence,  or  hear  him 
make  any  noise  at  all?  He  conducted  himself  peaceably,  just 
as  I  say.  Was  the  confusion  before,  or  after  David  Hilles 
got  up  to  go  to  the  table  ?  The  clamour  began  when  I  heard  a 
voice,  which  I  took  to  be  that  of  Israel  f'rench;  then  the  cla- 
mour began,  and  it  continued  till  after  Hilles  went  away  from 
me.  What  was  the  nature  of  that  clamour?  Was  it  assenting, 
or  in  opposition?  It  appeared  to  me  to  be  mostly  assent- 
ing, and  some  repeated  it  several  times  over.  Did  you 
know  any  one  person,  who  spoke  more  than  once,  in  approba- 
tion ?  I  could  not  tellj  their  backs  were  towards  me.  Do 
you  know  that  any  one  did  it?  I  cannot  identify  any  one.  I 
cannot  tell  what  party  or  society  they  belonged  to,  because 
there  were  those  there,  that  did  not  belong  to  the  society  of 
Friends.  Did  you  hear  them  join  in  this  clamour?  I  did  not 
distinguish  any  that  were  not  members  of  the  society,  saying 
any  thing.  I  believe  there  were  those  under  dealing,  but  I 
could  not  tell.  You  say  you  heard  the  assistant  clerk;  did  he 
speak  in  a  loud  voice?  He  is  a  loud  speaking  man,  and  I  heard 
what  I  supposed  was  his  voice,  but  I  could  not  see  him. 

Jie-examined  by  Mr.  TVright. —Witness  stated  that  he  heard 
some  one  say  (the  name  we  did  not  understand)  to  David  Hil- 
les, when  he  started,  "  Go  ahead  as  if  there  was  nothing  in  the 
way."  "  Go  ahead  with  a  steady  step."  "  Go  ahead  or  burst 
your  boiler."  I  could  not  tell  much  further,  for  he  was  soon 
out  of  sight.    The  general  cry  was  "go  ahead." 

Cross-examination  resumed. — Do  you  know  whether  they 
■were  members  of  the  society  who  said  go  ahead,  or  burst  the 
boiler?    No,  I  could  not  tell. 

S.  Pennington  affirmed — Did  you  attend  the  late  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Ohio?  I  was  there  on  Monday,  and  I  saw  a  per- 
son that  was  said  to  be  David  Hilles.  -  I  was  not  in  the  house 
till  after  the  cry  that  the  gallery  was  falling.  I  saw  a  man 
who  I  was  told  was  David  Hilles.  They  were  trying  to  get 
him  to  the  clerk's  table.  I  don't  know  that  he  was  making 
use  of  any  force  more  than  submitting  to  be  moved  by  those 
who  I  supposed  to  be  his  friends.  I  went  into  the  house  after 
the  alarm,  and  they  talked  about  David  Hilles  going  to  take 


a(  Steuhciiville,  Ohio. 


63 


possession  of  tlie  table.  The  first  I  saw,  he  was  going  up  the 
steps  into  the  ministers'  gallery.  Some  were  trying  to  take 
him  up,  and  some  to  keep  him  back,  and  after  he  got  there 
the  table  was  broken.  Some  cried  out  violence,  and  some 
said  it  was  time  to  surrender;  after  that,  some  one  said  he 
heard  one  voice,  "surrender,"  but  he  wanted  to  hear  one  or 
two  more. 

Cross-examination. — Was  Hilles  carried  aloft,  over  the  shoul- 
ders of  the  people,  or  did  he  walk?  He  was  rather  down,  not 
up  erect — sometimes  down  and  sometimes  up,  as  I  thought. 
As  he  was  going  up  the  steps,  after  the  table  was  broken,  I 
know  not  what  he  did.  I  did  not  see  him  use  any  efforts,  but 
he  submitted  to  what  others  did.  I  was  about  as  far  from 
him  as  to  that  post  (pointing  to  a  post)  say  six  yards.  He  was 
carried  forward  by  those  that  I  understood  to  be  his  friends. 
That  party  were  trying  to  get  him  up  to  the  seat;  and  he  ap- 
peared to  submit,  to  be  done  with  as  they  wished,  who  had 
him.  When  I  first  saw  him,  he  was  a  little  farther  than  the 
stove,  going  up  the  steps.  What  resistance  was  made?  One 
party  was  trying  to  keep  him  back — one  party  was  pushing 
back,  and  one  forward.  There  was  apparently  as  much  force 
on  one  side,  as  the  other;  for  they  kept  him  a  great  while  there. 
There  were  a  great  many  standing  about,  so  that  I  think  no- 
body could  have  got  up  through  the  pass  way.  Did  you  not 
see  the  persons  who  were  standing  there,  exerting  themselves 
to  prevent  his  getting  up?  There  were  some  there  who  op- 
posed him.  Was  the  door  back  of  the  clerk's  table  then  open? 
I  think  it  was  after  the  table  was  broken,  that  I  noticed  the 
door  open,  and  saw  Jonathan  Taylor  at  the  door.  The  first 
time  I  saw  David  Hilles,  he  was  going  up  the  steps,  and  I  did 
not  see  him  again  till  he  was  in  the  ministers'  gallery.  This 
was  after  the  table  was  broken — it  was  after  the  violence, 
and  after  some  had  cried  surrender,  and  he  was  in  peaceable 
possession.  But  how  was  it  when  you  first  saw  him?  Some 
were  trying  to  put  him  up,  and  some  were  trying  to  keep  him 
down.  The  Hicksites  were  trying  to  push  him  up,  and  the 
others  down.  Perhaps  there  was  about  the  same  number 
pushing  him  down,  as  up;  but  those  below,  having  a  better 
chance,  gained  the  victory.  When  he  was  coming  forward, 
the  people,  many  of  them,  were  on  the  benches. 

Ih:  JVilUam  Hamilton  sworn,  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution. — 
Witness  stated,  that  he  was  at  Mount  Pleasant  meeting  house, 
on  the  morning  of  Monday  the  8th  of  September,  1828. 

Questioned  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution. — Did  you  take 
notice  of  the  relative  numbers,  at  the  two  houses,  during  tlie 
week  of  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  was  frequently  past  the  two 
houses,  and  supposed  from  the  appearance,  that  there  was  a 
greater  number  at  the  old  house,  than  at  the  house  in  town. 


64 


Trial  of  Friends 


At  that  time  it  was  a  pretty  general  observation,  that  there 
were  more  at  that  meeting.  I  could  not  particularly  say  as  to 
the  proportion.  There  ap])eared  to  be  a  considerable  num- 
ber more  of  females  at  the  old  house,  than  at  the  new  meeting 
house;  as  to  the  men,  I  am  not  able  to  say.  The  only  way  I 
had  of  determining,  was  by  viewing.  Could  you  say,  whe- 
ther there  were  two-thirds,  more  or  less?  I  thought  that  of 
the  females,  there  were  near  iwo  to  one,  at  the  Short  Creek 
house,  and  I  think  there  were  more  men.  Of  the  females,  I 
am  pretty  well  persuaded  there  were  a  considerable  number 
more;  perhaps  two  to  one;  and  as  to  men,  it  appeared  to  me 
there  were  a  greater  number. 

Were  you  present  when  the  meeting  assembled  on  Monday 
morning?  I  went  there  on  Monday,  at  a  time  when  some  per- 
son was  engaged  in  prayer.  Did  you  observe  any  thing  like 
pushing.''  I  saw  some  pushing  in  and  out.  Some  stood  at 
the  door,  who  stated  that  their  business  was  to  prevent  those 
from  coming  in  who  had  no  right,  and  others  were  pushing  in, 
who  used  considerable  violence.  I  knew  not  who  they  were — 
they  were  strangers  to  me — they  were  pushing  past  the  door- 
keepers. Were  there  a  large  number  endeavouring  to  push 
in?  I  saw  one  general  rush,  in  which  there  were  a  considera- 
ble number.  I  heard  one  of  the  guards  say  that  he  was  fixed 
there  to  prevent  persons  from  coming  in  who  had  no  right. 
There  were  perhaps  twenty  in  a  body,  at  the  time  of  the  push. 
There  appeared  to  be  a  general  move  towards  the  door;  and 
a  considerable  push  ensued. 

Cross-examination. — It  was  raining  a  little,  when  the  meeting 
assembled  on  Monday  morning?  It  was  not  very  comfortable 
standing  out.  Do  you  not  know  that  in  the  assemlily  at  Short 
Creek,  or  at  the  old  meetinghouse,  there  were  a  great  many  who 
belonged  to  Mount  Pleasant,  where  they  are  principally  ortho- 
dox, that  is,  a  greater  proportion  than  at  the  new  meeting 
house?  There  appeared  to  be  more,  but  I  do  not  know  what 
proportion  of  these  lived  at  a  distance — I  cannot  tell.  At 
Short  Creek  house  the  number  was  considerably  swelled,  by 
those  of  the  neighljourhood?  Considerably — I  saw  a  great 
many  citizens — there  seemed  to  be  much  the  greatest  number 
at  the  old  meeting  house. 

At  what  time  did  you  enter  the  meeting  house  on  Monday 
morning?  I  did  not  go  in  till  the  door-keepers  were  gone.  I 
was  invited  to  attend  the  Quarterly  Meeting  previous,  and  in- 
vited to  attend  the  Yearly  Meeting,  the  day  before.  As  to 
Monday,  I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  was  invited  or  not.  Who 
invited  you?  The  invitation  was  left  at  my  house.  It  was  a 
pretty  general  practice,  when  strange  preachers  were  in  the 
place.  I  believe  I  received  a  verbal  invitation  to  attend  the 
Yearly  Meeting — I  think  Mr.  Crew  invited  me  to  attend. 


at  Sttubcnviilt^  Ohio. 


65 


There  was  no  objection  made  to  my  entering.  There  were  no 
door-keepers — the  difficulties  were  removed.  The  twenty  were 
all  in?  Yes,  long  before  that;  I  was  near  the  last.  I  was  not 
there  when  the  clerk  was  nominated:  but  I  just  heard  this 
respecting  the  clerk,  although  I  was  outside;  I  heard  some 
one  observe,  that  the  present  clerks  were  not  the  clerks  of  the 
meeting,  and  requested  David  Hillcs  to  take  his  seat.  I  did 
not  see  David  Hilles  taken  forward.  I  saw  considerable  move- 
ment and  stir,  but  1  could  not  see  how  it  was — I  could  not  see 
the  clerk's  table. 

Did  you  see  any  violence  there  by  either  party?  I  could  not 
designate  a  single  individual  using  violence  at  that  place. 
Part  of  the  time,  I  had  as  much  as  I  could  do  to  take  care  of 
myself.  I  was  not  in  the  meeting  house  after  the  orthodox 
withdrew;  I  saw  them  gathering  at  different  times,  for  I  was 
much  engaged  in  practice,  and  frequently  passed  by,  although 
I  was  not  again  in  eitlier  house  during  their  sitting. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  IVrighf. — Was  not  your  invitation  to 
attend  on  Sunday?  No,  I  believe  it  was  on  Monday;  but  who 
gave  it  I  cannot  tell.  I  think  Henry  Crew  gave  me  a  kind  of 
general  invitation  to  attend  the  select  meeting. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  7'oppan. — They  have  their  public 
days  of  worship,  and  meetings  of  business,  which  they  call 
select  meetings,  at  which  time  they  transact  the  business  of 
the  society.  Did  you  understand  yourself  invited  to  the  meet- 
ing on  Monday?  I  was  requested  to  go  up,  as  it  was  said  there 
probably  would  be  some  difficulty.  It  was  believed  there 
would  be  a  fuss.  Did  you  not  know  at  the  door,  that  it  was 
the  intention  of  the  orthodox,  to  keep  out  the  Hicksites,  and 
that  they  did  keep  them  out?  No,  I  did  not;  nor  did  I  know 
that  guards  were  there  till  I  went;  neither  do  I  know  that  it  is 
a  general  custom.  Were  there  any  stopped  from  going  in? 
There  were  some  stopped  from  entering;  Owen  Dewees  was 
told  that  he  was  disowned.  He  was  slopped  by  Isaac  Lloyd. 
Mr.  Dewees  came  up  to  go  in,  and  Mr.  Lloyd  intercepted  his 
passage.  He  wanted  to  know  why  he  could  not  go  in;  the 
reply  was,  that  he  was  disowned;  that  he  had  no  right,  as 
he  was  not  a  member.  I  think  1  saw  another  stopped  at  the 
south  door,  and  the  same  reasons  were  assigned.  Do  you 
know  whether  they  gained  admittance?  I  did  not  see  them  go 
in.  Do  you  know  whether  this  individual  was  a  member?  I 
do  not  know  of  my  own  knowledge,  but  have  understood  that 

he  was  a  member  for  Concord.    I  think  B  was  stopped  at 

the  south  door  by  Henry  Crew. 

David  Sleer  affirmed  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution. — Were  you 
at  the  Yearly  Meeting  at  Mount  Pleasant?  I  was.  Were  you 
one  of  the  door-keepers?  I  was.  What  Quarter  appointed  you? 
Short  Creek.    Did  you  attend  to  the  duties  of  door-keeper?  I 


CG 


Trial  of  Friends 


did.  What  duties  were  assigiHcI  you?  My  directions  were  to 
keep  the  meeting  select,  by  endeavouring  by  all  fair  means  to 
keep  out  those  who  were  disoAvned,  or  under  dealing,  according 
to  the  discipline  of  the  society.  There  were  several  of  that 
class  who  were  disowned,  and  who  came  and  endeavoured  to 
get  in.  I  endeavoured  to  stop  them,  and  told  them  they  could 
not  be  admitted.  To  one  in  particular,  Isaac  James,  I  said  he 
could  not  be  admitted.  He  said  he  Avas  determined  to  get  in; 
I  said  he  would  have  to  use  violence  if  he  did;  for  I  should  not 
consider  myself  obliged  to  go  out  of  the  door  for  him.  He  en- 
deavoured with  all  his  strength  to  push  me  out  of  the  door  by 
his  own  exertions;  and  finally,  a  company  of  others  of  the 
same  class,  and  different  classes,  succeeded  in  pushing  us  out, 
perhaps  ten  or  fifteen  feet,  in  which  rush  Thomas  White  was. 
There  were  Isaac  James  and  Thomas  White;  and  Isaac  Walker 
from  Redstone.    The  rest  were  strangers. 

W^ere  you  in  the  house  when  the  disturbance  took  place 
there?  I  was.  Did  you  attempt  to  keep  out  the  Hicksites? 
No.  I  had  no  instructions  to  keep  out  any  but  those  that  were 
disowned  or  under  dealing.  Was  not  your  instruction  to  let 
all  in  but  those?  It  was.  Did  you  make  it  known  at  the 
door?  I  did  by  public  outcry.  Was  Isaac  Walker  invited 
in?  He  was,  and  refused  to  go  in,  and  united  with  the  com- 
pany to  make  the  press. 

Is  Thomas  White  a  member?  No,  he  has  not  been  for  a 
number  of  years.  He  entered  about  the  same  time  that  Isaac 
James  did;  they  came  in  together.  Does  not  Thomas  White 
belong  to  the  orthodox  party?  I  believe  not.  He  has  told  me 
he  was  in  belief  with  that  party;  how  long  since  he  changed 
his  mind?  I  do  not  know  that  he  has  changed.  How  do  you 
know  Isaac  James  is  disowned?  Because  he  belonged  to  the 
same  Monthly  Meeting  with  me.  Did  he  ever  attend  Short 
Creek  meeting  as  a  member?  I  think  not.  Can  a  man  be  a 
member  of  a  Monthly  Meeting  without  attending  it?  I  do  not 
know  what  you  may  call  it.  Did  he  reside  within  the  bounds 
of  Short  Creek  meeting?  He  did;  for  all  Concord  was  annexed 
to  Short  Creek,  and  he  was  disowned  after  that.  Do  you 
know  who  laid  down  that  meeting?  It  was  laid  down  by 
Short  Creek.  Did  they  apply  to  be  laid  down?  There  were 
many  members  who  applied,  but  not  the  meeting  officially. 

What  was  the  object  of  laying  down  Concord  meeting?  I 
am  not  prepared  to  answer  that.  The  object  I  believe  was, 
that  the  Quarter  considered  us  not  in  a  situation  to  hold  a 
Monthly  Meeting  to  the  credit  of  society.  I  was  one  of  the 
members.  Were  your  part  of  the  meeting  in  the  minority? 
Yes.  Then  the  minority  applied  to  lay  down  t'le  Monthly 
Meeting?  Yes— by  the  report  of  the  committee  in  connexion 
with  the  minority.    And  the  Quarterly  Meeting  laid  it  down 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio.  67 

without  a  dissenting  voice,  but  a  majority  of  Concord  were  op- 
posed. Was  it  not  to  get  them  where  there  was  a  majority  of 
orthodox,  in  order  to  disown  them?  I  do  not  know — it  led  to 
that.  I  can't  say  it  was  that  particular  object;  it  might  have 
been  the  object  of  some  of  the  members,  I  do  not  believe  it 
was  the  ostensible  object.  I  know  that  was  the  result,  and  it 
was  my  impression  that  the  meeting  had  better  be  discon- 
tinued, because  we  were  not  in  a  situation  to  hold  a  meeting  to 
the  credit  of  society. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Wright. — Did  a  committee  from  the 
Quarterly  Meeting  visit  your  Monthly  Meeting  at  Concord? 
They  did,  and  it  was  their  sense,  with  a  number  in  the  meeting, 
that  we  ought  to  express  to  Short  Creek  Quarter,  the  propri- 
ety of  our  being  laid  down;  and  I  do  not  believe  there  was  a 
dissenting  voice.  I  can't  tell  whether  the  members  generally 
knew,  but  it  was  the  regular  time  of  holding  the  Quarter,  and 
it  was  the  sense  of  the  ministers  and  elders,  that  the  meeting 
had  better  be  laid  down. 

Cross-examination. — Did  you  attend  the  Monthly  Meeting 
when  it  is  said  to  have  been  laid  down?  I  was  at  the  Monthly 
Meeting  when  the  order  was  read  for  laying  it  down;  and  in- 
stead of  uniting  in  the  conclusion  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting, 
they  made  a  contrary  minute,  disapproving  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  Quarter,  in  laying  them  down,  and  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  seek  refuge  in  some  other  Quarter.  They  re- 
nounced allegiance  to  Short  Creek  Quarter.  Did  you  get  the 
records  of  that  Monthly  Meeting?  In  part,  but  not  all.  We 
got  the  records  of  the  women's  meeting,  and  of  the  men's 
meeting  till  1821.  From  1821,  the  Hicksites  held  the  papers. 
Did  you  not  stop  Nathan  Galbreath  from  going  into  meeting? 
I  did  for  a  time;  and  I  told  him  the  reason  of  my  stopping  him 
was,  that  I  understood  he  was  disowned.  He  said  he  was  not 
disowned.  I  told  him  if  he  would  bring  any  person  to  give 
me  satisfaction  that  he  was  not  disowned,  I  would  admit  him. 
And  while  we  were  conversing,  they  gathered  one  of  these 
crowds,  and  carried  us  both  into  the  house,  probably  fifteen  or 
twenty  feet  before  I  could  recover  myself.  I  was  at  the 
north-eastern  door. 

Was  there  a  large  majority  of  the  Hicksites  at  Concord? 
There  was  a  considerable  majority.  The  meeting  contains 
about  forty  families.  How  many  united  with  Short  Creek?  I 
think  eleven  or  twelve  went  to  Short  Creek.  (Said  Mr.  Tappan, 
this  is  what  used  to  be  called  at  the  GVL%X.yfAvA  gerrymandering.^ 
The  Concord  Meeting  is  continued,  notwithstanding  its  be- 
ing laid  down?  I  have  never  met  with  them  since  the  meet- 
ing was  laid  down;  but  I  have  seen  them  at  the  house — I 
could  not  tell  what  they  were  about. 


68 


Trial  of  Friends 


Bepositmi  of  Samuel  Settle. 
Personally  appeared  before  me,  at  the  house  of  George  W. 
Banks,  Esq.,  in  Mount  Pleasant,  on  the  15th  clay  of  Septem- 
ber, 1328,  between  the  hours  of  3  and  9,  P.  M.,  Samuel  Bettle, 
of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting;  who  being  duly  affirmed, 
deposeth  and  saith,  that  he  was  at  Mount  Pleasant  on  the 
8th  instant,  about  8  o'clock,  A.  M.,  to  attend  a  committee  on 
the  civilization  and  improvement  of  the  Indian  natives.  The 
Yearly  Meeting  for  business  was  to  convene  at  10  o'clock, 
A.  M.  A  number  of  persons,  however,  gathered  before  the 
time;  and  it  was  with  difficulty  the  committee  could  proceed 
with  their  business,  from  the  frequent  interruptions  from  with- 
out. Finding  this  to  increase,  they  adjourned  to  another  day; 
and  the  door-keepers  took  their  station,  and  the  doors  were 
opened  before  the  hour  appointed.  It  is  the  universal  prac- 
tice of  our  society,  in  all  places,,  to  appoint  committees  to 
attend  the  doors,  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of  strangers  and 
disowned  persons,  that  the  meeting  for  business,  agreeably 
to  the  direction  of  the  discipline,  may  be  held  select.  On  this 
occasion,  it  appeared,  a  number  of  persons,  of  this  description, 
presented  themselves;  and,  notwithstanding  the  remonstrances 
of  the  door-keepers,  pressed  forward,  in  a  turbulent  manner, 
into  the  meeting.  Several  times,  a  number  of  these  persons 
combined,  and  with  united  force,  bore  every  thing  before 
them;  and  rushed  into  the  house.  Friends  inside,  finding  this 
disposition  to  prevail,  repeatedly  called  to  those  at  the  door, 
not  to  oppose;  but  to  let  them  come  into  the  house,  which  soon 
became  exceedingly  crowded,  and  an  ancient  Friend  kneeling 
in  prayer,  order  and  quiet  was  experienced:  this,  however, 
was  but  of  short  duration,  before  noise  at  the  doors,  and  un- 
settlement  and  tumult  again  recuri'^d.  When  a  person  arose, 
and  after  objecting  to  the  clerk  at  the  table,  observed,  that  it 
devolved  on  him,  to  propose  to  the  meeting,  the  name  of  a  clerk; 
this,  however,  he  did  not  then  do.  The  meeting  was  then 
opened  by  the  clerk,  and  the  representatives  from  the  Quar- 
terly Meetings  were  called:  when  some  person  called  for  the 
naming  of  a  person  to  act  as  clerk;  and  David  Hilles  was  men- 
tioned. Whether  by  the  person  who  first  introduced  the  sub- 
ject, or  some  other,  I  do  not  know.  Some  cried  out,  they 
approved  of  David  Hilles  as  clerk;  to  which  others  objected, 
stating,  that  the  meeting  had  its  clerk,  and  requested  them  to 
be  quiet,  and  permit  the  business  to  proceed.  David  Hilles* 
was  now  urged  to  go  to  the  table,  and  he,  and  a  number  of 
others,  endeavoured  to  open  a  way,  by  force,  to  place  him 
there — and  in  the  effort,  a  scene  of  violence  took  place,  dis- 
graceful to  any  decent  assembly.  David  Hilles  and  his  parti- 
zans,  however,  finding,  that  although  Friends  did  not  use  fOi 
to  resist  them,  yet.  that  they  would  not  voluntarily  give  way. 


at  SlcubenvtUe,  Ohio. 


69 


found  lliat  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  accomplish  llicir  ob- 
ject.    About  this  time,  a  cry  was  raised,  that  the  galleries 
were  falling.    I  observed,  it  proceeded,  at  first,  from  one  per- 
son, and  I  was  soon  convinced  it  was  a  false  alarm,  purposely 
made.    A  number,  however,  soon  joined  in  it,  and  about  this 
time,  a  board  cracking,  gave  some  cause  for  the  alarm.  A 
rush  for  the  door  took  place,  windows  were  broken,  and  the 
confusion  and  outcry  for  a  time  was  appalling.    A  number  of 
Friends,  however,  perceiving  that  it  was  without  just  cause, 
endeavoured  to  prevent  Friends  leaving  the  house,  and  to  re- 
store order.    At  length,  some  degree  of  quiet  was  attained; 
and  many  returned  to  the  house.    But  soon  the  efforts,  forci- 
bly to  place  David  Hilles  at  the  table,  were  resumed.  Finding 
they  could  not  displace  Friends,  individuals  threw  themselves 
on  the  heads  of  those  in  the  passage,  and  by  holding  up,  and 
pulling  one  another,  endeavoured-  to  get  the  clerk's  table. 
They  were  frequently  remonstrated  with,  but  the  violence  and 
clamour  became  excessive;  and  some  of  these  disorderly  per- 
sons at  length  reached  the  table,  and  it  was  soon  broken  into 
pieces  and  destroyed.   In  this  desperate  transaction,  Jonathan 
Taylor,  the  clerk,  was  so  extremely  pressed  on,  as  to  place  him 
in  great  danger  of  serious,  if  not  fatal  consequences;  and  one 
Friend  called  to  the  rioters  to  beware,  or  they  would  commit 
murder.    David  Hillcs  taking  the  drawer  of  the  broken  table, 
now  opened  a  meeting.    A  person,  soon  after,  mentioning  the 
violent  interruption  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  had  experienced,  in 
the  regular  transaction  of  its  business,  proposed,  that  the  re- 
presentatives from  the  respective  Quarterly  Meetings  should 
be  called  upon  to  decide,  whether  it  would  not  be  necessary  to 
adjourn,  and  proposed  ten  o'clock  next  morning;  and  the  re- 
presentatives being  very  generally  present,  united  in  the  pro- 
posal. No  objection  being  made  in  the  meeting,  an  adjournment 
took  place,  and,  I  think,  at  least  two-thirds  of  the  persons  in 
attendance,  retired  from  the  house,  and  assembled  the  next 
day  at  the  time  appointed;  when  a  formal  demand  was  made 
for  the  peaceable  and  undisturbed  occupancy  of  the  house,  for 
the  use  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.    This  not  being  attained,  a 
meeting  was  held  in  the  yard,  and  subsequently  adjourned  to 
Short  Creek  meeting  house.  The  practice  and  discipline  of  our 
society,  in  every  Yearly  Meeting,  in  choosing  a  clerk,  is,  that 
the  representatives,  from  the  respective  Quarters,  meet  after 
the  first  sitting,  and  name  to  the  meeting,  when  it  next  assem- 
bles, the  person  to  fill  that  station,  who  continues  in  office 
until  after  the  first  sitting  of  the  next  annual  assembly,  unless 
sickness,  or  some  unavoidable  necessity  require  a  clerk  to  be 
temporarily  appointed  by  the  meeting. 

In  answer  to  the  interrogatories  on  the  part  of  the  state,  this 
deponent  saith,  that  he  has  been  clerk  at  least  ten  years,  for 
9 


70 


'I'l  iiil  of  Friends 


the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meclinij,  atid  is  clerk  now  of  said 
meeting. 

When  a  question  is  before  a  meeting,  and  there  appears  a 
difference  of  sentiment,  after  a  siiflicient  time  is  allowed,  the 
clerk  records  what  appears  to  him  the  general  sense  of  the 
meeting,  and  reads  the  minute,  and  if  there  is  a  general  ac- 
quiescence, it  is  the  conclusion  of  the  meeting.  But  if  many 
Friends  remain  dissatisfied,  it  generally  is  further  considered, 
or  postponed,  and  there  is  no  other  person  who  acts  for  the 
meeting,  oris  authorized  to  attest  and  announce  its  decisions, 
than  the  clerk. 

Questioned  by  the  defendants'  counsel. — Are  not  the  society  of 
Friends  now  divided  into  two  parties?  If  so,  what  is  the  name 
of  each  party?  I  do  not  consider  that  the  society  of  Friends 
are  divided  into  two  parties;  I  consider  the  society  of  I'riends 
remains  in  its  integrity,  holding  its  ancient  doctrines  and  disci- 
pline. That  a  number  of  persons  have  sepai'ated  from  them,  I 
admit.  What  do  the  separatists  call  tliemselves?  I  would  ra- 
ther they  would  answer  for  themselves.  By  what  name  are 
they  generally  known?  They  are  frequently  called  by  the  pub- 
lic, separatists  or  Hicksites.  Do  you  know  by  what  name 
they  designate  themselves?  I  have  not  communication  enough 
with  them  to  know  their  general  views  on  that  subject.  Do 
you  belong  to  the  Hlcksite  party,  or  the  party  you  call  Friends? 
I  belong  to  no  party.  Are  you  what  is  called  a  separatist  or 
Hicksite?  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  ever  been  called  a  sepe- 
ratist  or  Hicksite,  I  belong  to  the  society  of  Friends.  When 
and  where  were  the  door-keepers  appointed,  that  you  spoke  of  ? 
I  understood  from  what  passed  in  the  meeting,  they  were  ap- 
pointed by  their  respective  Quarterly  Meetings,  but  have  no 
personal  knowledge  on  the  subject.  Have  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ings power  to  appoint  door-keepers  for  the  Yearly  Meeting? 
Yes,  it  is  frequently  done,  and  is  the  custom  and  usage  of  the 
society.  Have  you  understood  for  what  purpose  the  door- 
keepers were  appointed  at  this  Yearly  Meeting?  I  have  no 
particular  knowledge  on  the  subject.  I  suppose  they  were  ap- 
pointed for  the  same  purpose,  for  which  they  are  generally 
appointed.  Did  not  more  door-keepers  appear  at  this  Year- 
ly Meeting,  than  is  usual  ?  I  never  saw  them  together, 
nor  do  I  know  their  numbers.  "  At  what  time  in  the  morning 
did  you  go  into  the  meeting  house?  About  eight  o'clock. 
Were  all  the  doors  of  the  meeting  house  opened  at  the  usual 
hour?  The  front  door  and  the  side  door  were  opened  before 
ten  o'clock.  Do  you  know  by  whom  these  doors  were  opened? 
I  do  not.  W^hat  was  your  object  in  going  to  the  meeting  house 
at  so  early  an  hour?  .1  went  to  attend  a  committee  of  the 
Y'early  Meeting,  for  the  civilization  and  improvement  of  the 
native  Indians.  At  or  a!)out  the  time  this  committee  ad- 
journed, were  there  not  arrangements  made,  that  the  seats  in 


at  Steubenvitlc,  Ohio. 


71 


the  gallery  should  be  occupied  by  those  in  the  house,  before 
the  doors  were  opened  for  the  admittance  of  Friends  generally? 
There  was,  to  my  knowledge,  no  such  arrangement.  What 
were  the  objections  made  to  Jonathan  Taylor,  as  clerk  of  the 
meeting?  I  did  not  hear  the  objections.  Were  there  more 
persons  approved  than  disapproved  of  David  Hilles  as  clerk? 
The  sense  of  the  meeting  on  that  subject  was  not  taken.  What 
force  did  David  Hilles  use  in  going  to  the  table?  I  cannot  say 
that  he  used  any  force,  separately  from  those  that  were  en- 
gaged with  him;  and  the  force  that  was  used,  was  described 
in  the  forepart  of  my  deposition  as  far  as  I  know.  Did  you 
see  David  Hilles  himself,  pushing  any  person,  as  he  went  to 
the  table?  When  he  got  near  to  the  table,  David  Hilles  made 
considerable  exertions  to  get  there,  and  he  could  not  do  so 
without  pushing  several  persons.  Did  Friends  use  any  force, 
to  prevent  him  from  going  to  the  table?  They  endeavoured 
to  keep  to  their  places,  and  did  not  use  any  active  means  to 
prevent  him,  that  I  saw.  Did  you  see  him  push  any  person? 
I  am  not  able  to  answer  that  question  in  any  other  way,  than  I 
have  already  done.  Do  you  know  who  gave  the  alarm,  that 
the  gallery  was  falling?  I  do  not.  How  do  you  know,  that  per- 
son knew  the  gallery  was  not  falling?  I  do  not  know  what  was 
his  opinion.  W^hat  then  did  you  mean,  by  saying  the  false 
alarm  was  purposely  made?  My  reason  for  it  was,  that  there 
appeared  to  be  no  foundation  for  it  whatever.  Did  David 
Hilles  make  a  minute  of  his  appointment  as  clerk?  I  do  not 
recollect  that  he  did,  while  I  was  in  the  house;  I  was  in  but 
a  short  time  after  he  began  to  act.  Do  you  know  whether  he 
commenced  making  a  m.inute  of  the  opening  of  the  meeting? 
I  do  not  know  that  he  did;  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  he 
read  a  minute,  and  called  a  number  of  names.  Did  you  see  Da- 
vid Hilles  take  hold  of  the  table  forcibly?  W^ith  respect  to 
any  force  used  by  David  Hilles,  I  have  given  all  the  informa- 
tion I  at  present  recollect.  Were  there  not  a  number  of  per- 
sons pushing  and  pulling  David  Hilles,  until  he  arrived  at  the 
table?  I  can  give  no  further  information  than  I  have  given, 
respecting  the  force  used  by  David  Hilles  and  his  friends. 
Was  not  the  table  broken  l>ef'ore  David  Hilles  arrived  at  it?  I 
do  not  know  whether  the  table  was  injured  before  or  not;  but 
to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  it  was  not  broken  up,  before  Da- 
vid Hilles  got  there,  or  near  there.  When  a  demand  of  the 
meeting  house  was  made,  in  the  name  of  the  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting,  what  was  the  reply  of  David  Hilles?  I  can  give  no 
other  information  on  that  subject,  than  what  I  have  stated  in  the 
forepart  of  my  deposition;  as  I  did  not  hear  the  answers  that 
were  given  in  the  house.  Did  you  ever  know  any  difficulty  in 
the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  respecting  the  choice  of 
a  clerk?  Yes.  Did  not  the  representatives,  in  the  spring  of 
1827,  disagree  in  the  choice  of  a  clerk;  and  did  not  the  meet- 


72 


Trial  oj  Friends 


ing  appoint  one?  No,  tlicy  disagreed,  and  in  consequence  of 
the  disagreement,  the  meeting  continued  tiie  old  clerks.  Is 
there  not  a  Yearly  Meeting  in  Philadelphia,  in  a  new  meeting 
house,  who  call  themselves  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  the  society 
of  Friends?  I  do  not  admit  that  there  Is  any  Yearly  Meeting 
in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  except  the  ancient  Yearly  Meeting 
of  the  society  of  Friends.  Is  there  not  a  society  of  persons 
there,  besides  the  ancient  Yearly  Meeting,  who  call  themselves 
the  Yearly  Meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends?  I  have  no  know- 
ledge of  any  Yearly  Meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends,  but  the 
ancient  Yearly  Meeting;  but  by  report,  there  is  a  number  of 
persons  who  have  called  themselves  by  that  name.  Are  not 
these  persons  sometimes  called  Hicksites?  Those  persons  are 
sometimes  called  Hicksites.  Has  not  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Friends  held  in  Baltimore,  acknowledged  that  society  as  a 
Yearly  Meeting,  by  corresponding  with  it?  I  know  nothing  of 
my  own  knowledge;  I  have  heard  that  the  Baltimore  Yearly 
Meeting  have  received  an  epistle,  from  the  description  of  per- 
sons mentioned  in  my  last  answer,  and  have  returned  them  a 
reply.  Is  not  the  receiving  an  epistle  by  a  Yearly  Meeting, 
and  answering  the  same,  the  usual  mode  of  one  Yearly  Meet- 
ing acknowledging  another?  That  is  only  one  of  the  circum- 
stances; and  there  are  several,  in  my  apprehension,  necessary 
to  constitute  a  full  acknowledgment;  and  besides,  I  am  not 
acquainted  with  the  nature  of  that  reply. 

Qileslioned  on  the  part  of  the  State. — How  near  were  you  to 
the  table,  when  the  disturbance  of  which  you  have  testified, 
took  place?  I  suppose  about  ten  or  twelve  feet.  Have  the  se- 
paratists, or  Hicksites,  as  they  are  called,  left  the  society;  or 
do  they  differ  from  the  society  of  Friends  avowedly,  on  matters 
of  discipline,  or  of  doctrine  and  faith?  I  consider  that  they  differ 
from  the  society  of  Friends  in  faith  and  discipline.  Were  the 
members  of  the  society  of  Friends  assembled,  at  the  meeting 
house  in  Mount  Pleasant,  at  the  time  of  the  disturbance  about 
which  you  have  testified,  for  the  purpose  of  worship,  or  per- 
forming any  of  the  duties  enjoined  on,  or  appertaining  to  them 
as  members  of  such  society?  They  were  assembled  to  transact 
the  usual  business  of  a  Yearly  Meeting. 

(The  last  question  was  objected  to  by  the  defendants'  counsel, 
for  the  reason,  that  it  ought  to  have  been  on  the  direct  exami- 
nation.) 

Affirmed  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  16th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1828.  WiLi.i\n  Smith,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 

Deposition  of  Isaac  Braithwaitc. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  this  15th  day  of  September, 
1828,  between  the  hours  of  8  A.M.  and  9  P.  M.,  at  the  house 
of  George  W.  Banks,  Esq.,  in  Mount  Pleasant,  in  Jeffprson 


at  Stcubcnvilie,  Ohio. 


7,-5 


county,  Ohio,  Isaac  liraithvvaitc,  of  Kendal,  in  the  county  of 
Westmoreland,  Great  Britain,  a  member  of  the  society  of 
Friends,  belonging  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  London,  a  wit- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  state,  who  being  duly  affirnried,  de- 
poscth  and  saith,  that  on  Second-day,  the  8th  instant,  he 
was  in  the  meeting  house  in  Mount  Pleasant,  soon  after 
S  o'clock  in  the  morning,  attending  with  the  committee 
who  have  the  civilization  of  the  Indian  natives  under  their 
carej  that  before  10  o'clock,  the  hour  when  the  Yearly 
Meeting  was  appointed  to  assemble,  the  south  door  of  the 
house  was  opened,  and  he  observed  several  Friends,  whom 
he  took  to  be  door-keepers,  in  attendance.  During  the  time 
the  meeting  was  gathering,  there  was  much  noise  about  the 
house,  and  the  two  doors  on  the  east  side  of  the  house  were 
soon  thrown  open,  and  a  great  number  of  persons  rushed  in, 
pushing  others  along  in  a  very  tumultuous  and  disorderly  man- 
ner. Several  Friends  remonstrated  against  such  proceedings, 
but  without  effect.  About  this  time,  our  friend  Thomas  Shil- 
litoe  appeared  in  supplication;  during  which,  and  for  a  short 
time  afterwards,  the  meeting  was  tolerably  quiet.  This  still- 
ness was  soon  disturbed  by  a  great  number  of  persons  rushing 
in  at  the  north-east  door;  and  the  part  of  the  meeting  house 
near  that  door  being  already  nearly  filled,  the  bustle  and  con- 
fusion were  very  great.  After  these  persons  were  mostly  seat- 
ed, a  man  stood  up,  and  said,  that  it  devolved  on  him  to  inform 
the  meeting,  that  the  present  clerks  had  disqualified  them- 
selves from  filling  that  office,  and  he  thought  the  meeting  would 
do  well  to  nominate  suitable  Friends  to  act  as  clerk  and  assist- 
ant. Several  voices  were  heard  approving  of  this  proposal, 
and  some  person  mentioned  the  name  of  David  Hilles  for  clerk, 
which  was  agreed  to  by.  a  number.  Friends  then  informed 
the  meeting,  that  the  regularly  appointed  clerk  was  already  at 
the  table,  and  proposed  that  he  should  open  the  meeting. 
This  was  united  with  by  the  Friends,  and  the  clerk  proceed- 
ed to  call  over  the  names  of  the  representatives  from  the  re- 
spective Quarterly  Meetings.  During  the  time  the  clerk  and 
assistant  clerk  were  thus  engaged,  the  meeting  was  frequent- 
ly interrupted,  by  the  jioise  of  those  persons,  who  were  anx- 
ious to  violate  the  order  of  the  society,  and  David  Hilles  was 
urged  to  proceed  to  the  table.  About  this  period,  an  alarm 
was  occasioned,  by  some  person  or  persons  calling  out  the 
galleries  are  falling.  As  I  was  unable  to  sec  any  thing  that 
indicated  such  an  occurrence,  I  concluded  it  was  a  false  alarm. 
The  noise  and  confusion  occasioned  by  this  circumstance, 
greatly  alarmed  the  women  Friends;  and  two  Friends  and  I, 
went  into  their  meeting  house,  and  iiiformcd  them  the  alarm 
was  a  false  one.  After  remaining  until  this  meeting  was  more 
settled,  wc  proposed  returning  into  the  men's  meeting;  but 


74 


7V((i/  of  F r tends 


wc  were  requested  to  renuiin,  which  we  did  until  the  meeting 
adjourned. 

Question  by  JUlorney  for  the  State. — Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  the 
usual  practice  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends, 
of  which  you  are  a  member,  to  have  door-keepers  when  trans- 
acting the  business  appertaining  to  such  meeting?  If  so,  how 
long  has  that  practice  continued,  and  what  are  the  duties  of 
such  door-keepers?  It  is  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  London  to  have  door-keepers.  I  do  not  know  how 
long  such  has  been  the  practice,  but  from  my  own  information, 
it  has  been  so  upwards  of  twenty  years.  The  duties  of  the 
door-keepers  are,  to  prevent  any  person  or  persons  entering 
the  meeting  house  who  are  not  members  of  our  society,  or  if 
any  such  should  enter,  to  request  them  to  withdraw,  and  in 
case  they  refuse,  to  take  them  out.  According  to  the  rules  of 
society,  was  the  motion  for  the  appointment  of  a  clerk,  in  or 
out  of  order,  when  the  regular  clerk  was  present  and  at  the 
tal)le?  It  was  a  proposition  altogether  out  of  order,  and  in 
direct  violation  of  the  discipline  of  our  Yearly  Meeting.  Was 
the  meeting  of  Friends,  above  referred  to,  held  on  the  8th  inst. 
at  Friends'  meetinghouse  in  Mount  Pleasant,  a  meeting  for  the 
purpose  of  worship,  or  for  performing  any  duties  enjoined  on, 
or  appertaining  to  the  meeting  of  Friends,  as  members  of  such 
society?  The  meeting  held  in  Friends'  meeting  hpuse  in 
Mount  Pleasantj.  on  the  8th  inst.  was  for  the  purpose  of  trans- 
acting the  business  of  such  meeting,  agreeably  to  their  disci- 
pline, and  intimately  connected  with  their  preservation  and 
welfare,  as  a  religious  society.  But  in  my  own  country,  such 
meeting  would  not  be  considered  exclusively  as  a  meeting  for 
religious  worship;  though  I  do  no-t  remember  ever  attend- 
ing any  sitting  of  such  meeting,  either  in  this  country  or  Great 
Britain,  but  some  one  or  other  of  our  approved  ministers,  have 
been  engaged  cither  in  the  ministry  or  supplication.  Were 
you  present  at  the  meeting  for  worship,  in  the  Friends'  meet- 
ing house  in  Mount  Pleasant,  the  afternoon  previous  to  the 
8th  inst.?  if  so,  will  you  state  what  knowledge  you  have  as  to 
any  disturbance  of  that  meeting,  by  whom,  and  in  what  man- 
ner? I  was  present  at  the  meeting  house  in  Mount  Pleasant, 
on  the  afternoon  of  the  7th  inst.  The  meeting  was  not  fully 
gathered,  when  a  person,  whom  I  afterwards  understood  to  be 
Elisha  Dawson,  stood  up,  and  spoke  for  some  time.  Almost 
immediately  on  his  taking  his  seat,  A.  Peaslee  stood  up,  and 
spoke  for  a  considerable  length  of  time:  during  the  time  he 
wasthusengaged,  he  was  requested  to  sit  down  by  two  Friends, 
but  he  paid  no  attention  to  their  remonstrances;  and  whilst 
Elisha  Bates  was  thus  requesting  him  to  take  his  seat,  a  num- 
ber of  persons,  in  a  disorderly  manner,  ordered  Elisha  Bates 
to  sit  down,  and  I  distinctly  heard  some  say,  that  if  Elisha 


at  Stcubcnville,  Ohio. 


7S 


Bates  did  not  sit  down,  he  should  be  carried  out.  Will  you 
state  why  A.'Peaslee  was  requested  to  sit  down?  It  was  well 
known  to  many  Friends  in  the  meeting,  that  A.  Peaslee  was 
not  a  member  of  the  society  ol"  Friends;  and  it  was,  therefore, 
•*  considered  highly  improper. that  he  should  be  permitted  to 
interrupt  the  solemnity  of  the  meeting. . 

Questioned  by  defendants'  counsel. — Is  not  the  society  of  Friends 
in  this  country  divided  into  two  parties?  The  society  of 
Friends  in  this  country,  I  consider  to  be  one  in  faith  and  prac- 
tice. Is  there  not  a  division  amongst  its  members?  The  so- 
ciety of  Friends  is  not  divided:  there  are  persons  belonging 
to  some  meetings  who  have  separated  themselves  from  the 
society,  but  on  whom  the  discipline  has  not  yet  had  its  full 
operation.  Do  not  those  persons  claihi  to  belong  to  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends?  I  apprehend  such  persons  do  consider  them- 
selves as  members  of  their  respective  meetings,  until  they  are 
disowned.  Do  you  know  what  proportion  of  the  Friends,  at- 
tending the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  were  of  that  description? 
I  do  not  know.  Is  not  the  Yearly  INIeeting  the  highest  legis- 
lative body  known  to  the  society  of  Friends?  The  Yearly 
Meeting  is  considered  the  superior  meeting  of  the  respective 
Quarterly  Meetings  belonging  to  it,  and  beyond  its  decisions 
there  is  no  appeal.  Has  the  Yearly  Meeting  power  to  make, 
alter,  and  dispense  with  the  discipline  of  the  society?  The 
Yearly  Meeting  has  power  to  make  fresii  rules  of  discipline, 
or  to  alter  those  rules  already  in  existence. 

Question  by  Attorney  for  the  State— Does  the  Yearly  Meeting 
of  the  society  of  Friends  in  London,  acknowledge,  or  recognise, 
as  any  part  of  the  society  of  Friends, those  persons  who  are  com- 
monly known  in  America  as  separatists,  or  Hicksites?  The 
Yearly  Meeting  of  London,  has  expressly  declared  itself  to 
have  no  connexion  whatever  with  any  meeting  or  meetings  al- 
ready set  up  by  these  people,  or  which  may  be  set  up  hei-eaf- 
terj  neither  would  that  meeting,  or  any  of  its  subordinate 
meetings,  acknowledge  any  person  united  or  belonging  to  any 
meeting  so  set  up,  contrary  to  the  order  of  the  society. 

Question  by  defendants'  counsel. — Who  do  you  understand  l)y 
the  separatists,  or  Hicksites?  I  am  unacquainted  with  the  con- 
stitution of  their  meetings  of  discipline,  if  they  hold  any  such 
meetings:  as  to  their  peculiar  tenets,  it  would  be  easier  to 
state  what  they  do  not  believe,  th-an  what  they  do  believe.  In 
general  terms,  I  consider  a  man  a  Hicksite,  who  entertains 
the  opinions  which  Elias  Hicks  promulgates.  Are  they  not 
persons  who  belong  to  the  society  of  Friends?  Any  persons 
who  entertain  the  opinions  which  E.  Hicks  promulgates,  I 
do  not  consider  as  belonging  to  the  society  of  Friends. 

And  futhrer,  this  deponent  saith  not. 

Isaac  Bkaithwaite. 


76 


'I'riiil  of  Friends 


Aflfirmed  ami  subscriljed  before  me,  a  Justice  of  Peace,  in 
and  for  llie  county  of  Jefferson,  state  of  Ohio.  . 

Wm.  Smith,  Junr. 
Court  adjourned  till  two  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Friday  the  \7th,  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 
Deposition  of  William  Jenkins. 
Personally  appeared  before  me,  at  the  same  place,  on  the 
15th  of  September,  1828,  between  the  hours  of  8  A.  M.  and  9 
P.  M.,  William  Jenkins,  of  Providence,  Rhode-Island,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends  of  New-England,  who 
being  duly  affirmed,  deposeth  and  saith,  that  he  attended,  with 
others,  the  meeting  of  the  committee  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting, 
on  Indian  concerns,  on  the  morning  of  tlie  8th  of  the  present 
month,  at  Friends'  meeting  house,  Mount  Pleasant,  Ohio. 

We  assembled  about  8  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  that  day, 
and  the  committee  proceeded  to  business.  Before  the  hour 
often  had  come,  the  time  at  which  the  Yearly  Meeting  was  to 
assemble,  to  proceed  to  the  business  of  said  meeting,  it  was 
apparent  that  many  had  assembled  in  the  yard,  and  the  wea- 
ther being  very  inclement,  the  business  was  suspended.  Wo- 
men Friends  withdrew  to  their  apartments,  and  Friends  took 
their  seats,  when  the  door-keepers  were  requested  to  open  the 
doors  for  the  admission  of  Friends  who  were  in  the  yard.  As 
soon  as  this  was  done,  great  numbers  came  in,  and  the  house 
in  a  short  time  became  nearly  filled.  Before,  however,  it  was 
so,  some  disturbance  appeared  at  the  south  front  door,  and 
pretty  soon  a  number  of  persons  came  rushing  in;  one  or  more 
of  whom  in  a  hasty,  boisterous  manner,  proceeded  to  open  the 
south-east  end  door,  which  had  not  until  then  been  opened. 

Not  long  after  this,  a  great  press  of  individuals  was  observ- 
ed at  the  north-east  end  door.  The  noise  and  clamour  of 
voices  were  heard,  and  very  soon  a  rush  was  made  through 
this  entrance,  by  a  considerable  number  of  persons,  whom  I 
did  not  know,  with  the  exception  of  Amos  Peaslee,  who  was 
among  them.  At  this  time,  the  house  became  very  full,  and  a 
large  number  were  standing  in  the  alleys. 

In  a  short  time,  Jonathan  Taylor,  the  clerk  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting,  made  a  movement  preparatory  to  proceeding  witii 
the  business  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  about  which  tiine  a  per- 
son rose,  and  in  substance  stated,  that  it  had  devolved  on  him 
to  say,  that  the  present  clerk  had  disqualified  himself  from  act- 
ing as  clerk  of  that  meeting;  and  proposed  that  another  should 
be  nominated.  The  clerk,  however,  proceeded  with  the  busi- 
ness of  the  Yearly  Meeting;  read  the  opening  minute,  and  called 
the  names  of  the  representatives  from  the  several  Quarterly 
Meetings,  who,  with  but  few  exceptions,  answered  to  their 
names.    The  assistant  c  lerk  then  i-ead,  in  an  miditile  voice, 


at  Steulenvillcy  Ohio. 


the  accounts  from  the  several  Quarterly  Meetings,  when  the 
meeting  became  organized,  agreeably  to  the  practice  and  or- 
der of  the  society  of  Friends.  It  being  the  uniform  practice 
and  discipline  of  our  society,  that  the  clerk  appointed  the  pre- 
ceding Yearly  Meeting,  should  fill  that  station  in  the  succeed- 
ing Yearly  Meeting,  until  the  close  of  the  first  sitting,  when 
the  representatives  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings  are  required 
to  name  a  clerk  for  the  ensuing  year,  to  the  next  sitting.  Dur- 
ing the  time  the  clerk  was  proceeding  with  the  business  of  the 
meeting,  some  person  proposed  the  name  of  David  Hilles  as 
clwk,  which  was  responded  to  by  a  number  of  voices,  and  he 
was  urged  to  go  to  the  table;  in  violation  of  the  established 
order  and  discipline  of  the  society,  as  above  stated;  many 
Friends  at  the  same  time  distinctly  stating,  that  the  clerk  was  al- 
ready at  the  tabic,  and  the  meetingorganized.  The  scene  of  riot 
and  turbulence  which  now  ensued,  I  cannot  describe;  but  which 
was  so  violent,  that  the  clerk  suspended  the  business  of  the 
meeting.  I  was  seated  on  the  west  side  of  the  alley  leading 
from  the  south  front  door  to  the  ministers'  gallery;  I  believe 
on  the  second  raised  seat;  so  that  I  could  only  hear  and  see 
the  tumult,  without  being  able  to  designate  an  individual  con- 
nected with  it:  nor  did  I  know  that  any  one  had  reached  the 
clerk's  table,  until  I  heard  a  person  reading,  what  purported 
to  be  an  opening  minute  of  a  meeting.  About  this  time,  an 
adjournment  of  the  meeting  was  proposed,  and  the  names  of 
the  representatives  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings  being  called, 
they  consented  to  it.  The  minute  of  adjournment  was  read 
by  Jonathan  Taylor,  the  clerk,  and  the  meeting  adjourned  to 
meet  at  10  o'clock  the  next  morning. 

The  next  day,  Friends  met  agreeably  to  the  adjournment,  at 
10  o'clock.  Many  were  there  before  me,  so  that  I  could  only 
hear  a  voice,  which  I  believed  to  be  that  of  Elisha  Bates,  de- 
manding the  undisturbed  use  of  the  meeting-house  at  Mount 
Pleasant,  from  persons  within,  for  the  accommodation  of  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting.  I  was  not  near  enough  to  hear  what  reply 
was  given,  and  only  heard  E.  Bates  say  something  to  this  im- 
port, that  he  understood  them  to  say,  that  the  occupancy  of 
the  house  was  refused  for  the  accommodation  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Ohio.  When  he  came  out.  Friends  assembled  in 
the  yard,  and  the  meeting  was  organized,  and  the  representa- 
tives proposed  Elisha  Bates  for  clerk,  and  Amos  E.  Kimberly 
for  his  assistant,  and  after  a  solemn  meeting,  an  adjournment 
to  Short  Creek  house  was  proposed,  and  united  in  by  the  meet- 
ing. The  minute  of  adjournment  was  read,  and  the  meeting 
separated. 

Question  by  the  Attorney  for  the  State. — Was,  or  was  not,  the 
meeting  that  you  wei'e  attending,  a  meeting  for  the  perform- 
ance of  duties  appertaining  to  them  as  members  of  the  reli- 

10 


Trial  of  yrinuh 


j^ious  society  of  Kriciuls?  I  met  with  Friends  at  the  Friends' 
house,  to  transact  the  usual  business  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Ohio. 

Question  by  defendants^  counsel. — At  what  time  were  the  doors 
opened,  and  how  many  were  opened?  Before  or  about  10 
o'clock  the  direction  was  given  for  the  doors  to  be  opened, 
and  I  believe  the  south  front  door  and  the  north-east  end  door 
were  opened  at  that  time.  How  many  outside  doors  are  there 
to  that  part  of  the  house?  I  think  three.  Were  guards  placed 
at  the  doors  when  they  were  opened?  if  so,  how  many,  and  for 
what  purpose?  I  believe  door-keepers  were  at  the  two  daors 
which  were  opened:  how  many  I  know  not;  and  I  believe  they 
were  there  to  answer  the  usual  purposes  of  door-keepers  on 
such  occasions.  Are  not  the  persons  composing  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Friends  in  Ohio,  now  divided  into  two  parties?  I 
consider  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends  in  Ohio  as  one  body, 
united  in  faith  and  jjractice.  Is  there  not  now  a  division  in 
that  body?  I  am  ignorant  of  any  division  in  the  Y'^early  Meet- 
ing of  Friends  in  Ohio.  Is  there  not  a  division  amongst  the 
persons  lately  composing  that  body.^  Of  my  own  knowledge 
I  am  ignorant,  but  have  been  told  that  some  persons  have  se- 
parated themselves  from  the  society  of  Friends.  By  what 
name  do  these  persons  distinguish  themselves?  I  cannot  say. 
Do  they  not  claim  to  belong  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends? 
I  do  not  know;  I  know  not  the  appellation  they  have  given 
themselves.  What  proportion  of  the  persons  lately  comprising 
the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  do  those  persons  who 
have  withdrawn  themselves  include?  The  number  of  those 
persons  who  have  separated  themselves  from  the  society  of 
Friends,  I  am  ignorant  of.  Were  the  door-keepers,  who  were 
stationed  at  the  doors,  instructed  to  exclude  those  persons 
from  the  house?  I  know  of  no  instruction  to  exclude  any  in- 
dividuals. Was  not  David  Hilles  nominated  as  clerk  before 
the  old  clerk  had  opened  the  meeting?  My  impression  is,  that 
he  was  not.  When  he  was  nominated  as  clerk,  did  not  a  large 
number  of  the  meeting  approve  of  that  nomination?  Num- 
bers of  persons  did  so  approve;  whether  they  were  members 
of  the  Y'early  Meeting  of  Ohio,  or  not,  I  do  not  know.  Did 
any  considerable  number  of  persons  object  to  that  nomination? 
A  number  of  Friends  did,  at  that  time,  state  that  the  clerk  was 
already  at  the  table,  and  the  meeting  was  regularly  organized. 
Were  there  as  many  persons  who  objected,  as  there  were  who 
approved  of  that  nomination?  I  cannot  say.  Have  the  repre- 
sentatives from  the  different  Quarterly  Meetings  to  the  Year- 
ly Meeting,  power  to  adjourn  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  am  not 
sufficiently  informed  what  would  be  the  general  understanding, 
to  answer  that  question. 

Question  on  behalf  of  the  State, — Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  the  usual 


at  SleubfnvilU\  Ohio. 


79 


practice  of  the  Yeai  iy  Meetings  of  the  society  of  Friends,  of 
which  you  are  a  member,  to  have  door-keepers  when  transact- 
ing- business  appertaining  to  such  meetings?  if  yea,  how  long 
has  that  been  the  practice?  It  is  our  practice,  and  has  been 
so  for  many  years.  According  to  the  rules  of  the  society,  was 
the  motion  for  the  appointment  of  a  new  clerk,  in,  or  out  of 
order,  when  the  regular  clerk  was  ofTiciating?  It  was  a  direct 
violation  of  our  order  and  discipline.  Were  you  present  at  the 
meeting  for  worship,  the  afternoon  previous  to  the  8th?  if  so, 
will  you  state  what  knowledge  you  have  as  to  any  disturbance 
of  that  meeting,  by  whom,  and  in  what  manner?  I  was 
at  that  meeting,  in  which  a  person,  whose  name,  I  after- 
wards was  told,  is  Elisha  Dawson,  made  a  public  address, 
commencing  before  the  meeting  was  fully  gathered,  and  when 
he  sat  down,  was  immediately  followed  by  Amos  Peaslee,  in 
an  address,  which  occupied,  I  think,  nearly  an  hour;  in  the 
course  of  which  address,  he  was  requested  by  Jonathan  Tay- 
lor and  Elisha  Bates  to  take  his  seat;  to  which  request  he  paid 
no  attention,  but  continued  to  speak  as  long  as  he  chose.  At 
the  time  E.  Bates  was  speaking  to  A.  Peaslee,  a  number  of 
persons  pointedly  told  E.  Bates  to  take  his  seat.  Will  you 
state  why  Amos  Peaslee  was  told  to  sit  down?  I  believe  it 
was  known  by  those  persons  who  directed  him  to  sit  down, 
that  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  religious  society  of  Friends, 
and  of  course  not  in  unity  with  the  body.  According  to  the 
usage  and  practice  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  so  far  as 
you  are  acquainted  with  it,  what  is  the  ordinary  duty  of  the 
door-keepers?  To  protect  the  meeting  from  being  intruded 
on  by  those  who  are  not  members  of  our  society,  or  who  may 
be  under  dealing  in  the  Monthly  Meetings,  according  to  our 
discipline. 

By  defendants'  counsel. — Has  Amos  Peaslee  been  a  preacher 
in  your  society?  He  formerly  was,  but  I  do  not  now  consider 
him  to  be  such.  Do  you  know  of  what  Monthly  Meeting  of 
Friends  he  is  a  member?  I  do  not  believe  him  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  any  Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends.  Do  you  know  of 
what  Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends  he  was  a  member?  I  have 
been  told,  that  he  was  formerly  a  member  of  the  Monthly 
Meeting  of  Friends  at  Woodbury,  New-Jersey,  but  that  he  is 
now  disowned  by  them.  Do  you  know  at  what  time  that  sup- 
posed disownment  took  place  ?  I  do  not  know  the  precise 
time  he  was  disowned.  Is  it  not  a  direct  breach  of  the  disci- 
pline of  the  society,  to  direct  a  preacher  to  sit  down,  when 
addressing  a  public  meeting  ?  If  such  minister  is  not  approv- 
ed, or  not  in  membership,  it  is  no  breach  of  discipline  to  re- 
quest him  to  sit  down;  and  I  never  knew  an  instance  of  an  ap- 
proved minister  in  our  society  so  directed. 

^VII,LIAM  Jl'.XlilNS. 


80 


Trial  of  Friends 


Affirmed  and  subscrLI)ed  before  me,  a  Justice  of  Peace  of 
the  county  of  Jefferson,  state  of  Ohio. 

Wm.  Smith,  Justice  of  Ihe  Peace. 

Deposition  of  Fleming  Bates. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  at  the  house  of  George  W. 
Banks,  Esq.  in  Mount  Pleasant,  on  the  16th  day  of  Septem- 
ber, 1828,  between  the  hours  of  8  A.  M.  and  9  P.  M.  Fleming- 
Bates,  of  Hanover  county,  Va.  who  stated  as  follows: — 

This  deponent  being  first  duly  affirmed,  deposeth  and  saith, 
that  he  is  a  citizen  of  \'^irginia,  and  a  member  of  the  society 
of  Friends,  belonging  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  held  in  that  state. 
That  he  attended  a  public  meeting  for  worship,  held  at  Mount 
Pleasant  in  the  afternoon  of  First-day  the  7th  inst.  Soon 
after  the  meeting  was  gathered,  an  individual,  whom  this  de- 
ponent was  informed  was  Elisha  Dawson,  got  up  and  spoke 
for  a  considerable  timej  a  few  moments  after  he  sat  down, 
Amos  Peaslee  stood  up,  and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  oc- 
cupied much  of  the  time  of  the  meeting;  while  he  was  speak- 
ing, Jonathan  Taylor  requested  him  to  sit  down,  observing 
that  he  thought  it  unbecoming  in  individuals  who  had  no  right 
in  the  society,  thus  to  intrude  themselves,  and  impose  on  the 
time  and  attention  of  the  meeting,  or  words  to  that  effect.  To 
this  request  the  said  Peaslee  paid  no  respect,  but  went  on 
speaking;  when  Elisha  Bates  told  him  to  sit  down,  and  in- 
formed the  meeting  that  he,  the  said  Peaslee,  had  no  right  in 
the  society  of  Friends,  and  that  he  had  the  day  before  been 
furnished  with  a  testimony  of  disownmeiit,  by  the  clerk  of  the 
Monthly  Meeting  to  which  he  had  belonged.  This  for  a  short 
time  excited  much  noise  and  confusion  in  the  meeting,  but 
Peaslee  went  on  and  finished  his  harangue. 

On  the  8th  inst.  this  deponent  attended  the  meeting  of  a 
committee  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio,  on  whom  devolved 
the  care  of  attending  to  the  concerns  relating  to  the  civiliza- 
tion of  the  Indian  natives.  This  committee  met  at  8  o'clock 
in  the  morning;  at  that  time  there  were  a  number  of  other 
individuals  in  the  house,  who,  this  deponent  was  informed, 
were  representatives  and  door-keepers,  appointed  by  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting.  They  did  not  occupy  the  same  apartment  with 
the  committee  on  Indian  concerns.  The  business  of  the  said 
committee,  was  frequently  interrupted  by  loud  knockings  at 
the  door,  and  by  a  tumult  which  seemed  to  be  gathering  in  the 
yard.  They,  however,  continued  their  deliberation  till  near 
half  past  9  o'clock,  when  they  adjourned  to  give  place  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  which  was  to  convene  at  10.  Friends  then 
took  their  seats;  the  south  door,  and  that  toward  the  north- 
east corner  of  the  house,  were  opened,  and  the  door-keepers 
repaired  to  their  places.    From  the  noise  and  tumult  in  the 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


81 


yard,  it  soon  became  apparent  that  a  number  of  disorderly 
persons  were  about  to  enter  the  house.  At  the  south  door,  a 
condensed  crowd  presented  themselves,  whose  entrance  was 
for  a  short  time  opposed  by  the  door-keepers  within. 

Friends,  however,  from  the  gallery,  again  and  again  called 
to  them,  if  violence  is  used,  give  way  and  let  them  come. 
They  gave  way,  and  a  crowd  immediately  entered,  some  of 
whom  ran  and  broke  open  the  door  near  the  south-east  corner 
of  the  house,  with  great  violence;  soon  after  this  occurrence, 
another  violent  pressure  on  the  door-keepers  stationed  at  the 
door  near  the  north-east  corner,  was  made,  and  when  they 
gave  way,  Amos  Peaslee  and  Elisha  Dawson,  preceded  and 
followed  by  a  condensed  crowd,  entered,  and  in  a  few  minutes 
the  floor  of  the  house  was  crowded  to  excess.  A  Friend  then 
informed  the  assembly,  that  many  of  the  seats  in  the  youth's 
gallery  were  unoccupied,  to  which  they  were  requested  to  re- 
pair; but  this  was  an  advantage,  of  which  those  who  occupied 
the  spaces  leading  from  the  doors  did  not  appear  disposed  to 
avail  themselves.  A  short  pause  of  comparative  quiet  en- 
sued, in  which  an  aged  Friend  was  engaged  in  vocal  prayer. 
Soon  after  that,  Jonathan  Taylor,  the  clerk  of  the  meeting, 
pursuant  to  his  duty,  prepared  to  open  the  meeting,  when  an 
individual  in  the  crowd,  said  it  devolved  upon  him  to  state 
that  the  clerks  had  become  disqualified  to  serve  the  meeting,  and 
proposed  that  others  should  be  appointed;  this  was  assented 
to  in  a  clamorous  manner,  by  a  number  of  individuals  speak- 
ing at  the  same  time,  and  others  in  rapid  succession.  Another 
individual  then  proposed  that  David  Hilles  should  be  appoint- 
ed to  that  service — this  was  also  assented  to  by  a  number  of 
individuals  in  a  manner  unprecedented  in  any  of  the  meetings 
of  the  society  of  Friends,  that  this  deponent  had  ever  seen — 
their  assent  resounded  in  acclamations  from  the  floor  to  the 
upper  galleries,  and,  to  the  ear  of  this  deponent,  in  divers  in- 
stances, seemed  to  be  repeated  by  the  same  voices  several 
times. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  regularly  appointed  clerks,  in  whose 
hands  the  reports  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings  had  been 
placed,  proceeded  to  call  the  names  of  the  representatives,  all 
of  whom  answered  to  their  names  except  five,  for  the  absence 
of  ' two  of  whom  reasons  were  given  in.  Loud  and  repeated 
calls  from  different  parts  of  the  house  were  now  made,  to 
bring  David  Hilles  to  the  clerk's  table. 

A  crowd,  occupying  the  space  before  the  gallery  steps,  above 
which  the  table  was  placed,  and  the  clerk's  seat,  was  collected, 
and  several  efforts  were  made  to  force  their  way  through  the 
Friends  who  occupied  the  steps,  but  they  standing  firm  in  their 
places,  those  efforts  were  defeated.  In  the  meantime,  a  number 
of  those  persons  engaged  in  these  disorderly  and  outrageous 


82 


Trial  of  Friends 


proceedings,  were  (•-ailed  by  the  assistant  clerk,  and  by  hint 
requested  to  leave  the  house.  In  this  stage  of  proceedings, 
the  attention  of  this  deponent  was  directed  to  an  individual 
in  the  youth's  gallery  nearly  opposite  to  where  he  sat,  who, 
addressing  himself  to  those  who  sat  in  the  ministers'  gallery 
and  on  the  benches  below  it,  observed  that  the  sound  board 
above  them  was  loaded  with  an  immense  crowd;  that  it  would 
probably  give  way  and  crush  to  death  all  beneath  it.  The 
individual  who  sat  next  this  deponent,  seemed  alarmed,  and 
was  about  to  leave  his  seat;  but  this  deponent  requested  him 
to  be  quiet,  saying,  that  he  believed  there  was  no  danger,  and 
that  it  was  only  a  stratagem  to  gain  possession  of  that  part 
of  the  house.  A  few  minutes  after,  there  was  a  crack  of  some- 
thing apparently  over  our  heads,  similar  to  breaking  a  lath, 
and  instantly  a  cry  was  raised  and  resounded  on  all  sides, 
that  the  galleries  were  giving  way;  that  the  house  was  falling. 
The  consternation  and  tumult  that  ensued,  were  truly  appalling. 
This  deponent  sprang  forward,  over  two  of  the  benches,  then 
turned,  and  particularly  observed  the  ceiling  of  the  sound  board 
and  of  the  galleries,  and  finding  that  nothing  had  given  way, 
was  immediately  assured  that  it  was  a  false  alarm.  He  saw, 
however,  the  crowd  pressing  forward  towards  the  clerk's  ta- 
ble, without  the  least  loss  of  time.  He  saw  individuals  stand- 
ing near  it,  in  whose  personal  safety  he  felt  a  deep  interest, 
and  determined  to  be  as  near  them  as  possible.  By  crossing 
the  benches,  he  immediately  entered  the  ministers'  gallery, 
and  pressing  through  those  standing  in  it,  advanced  to  the 
clerk's  table.  The  door  immediately  behind  the  clerk  was 
then  open.  A  number  of  individuals  on  both  sides  the  table, 
held  it  firmly,  by  whose  exertions  it  was  soon  broken  into  frag- 
ments. A  violent  pressure  was  then  made  from  the  gallery 
steps,  towards  the  door,  in  rear  of  the  clerk's  seat — this  de- 
ponent saw  Jonathan  Taylor  yield  to  it  until  his  back  came  in 
contact  with  the  post  of  the  door.  The  crowd  pressed  on;  I 
saw  his  countenance  change;  and  believing  he  was  threatened 
with  instant  destruction,  cried  aloud,  give  back,  or  Jonathan 
Taylor  will  be  crushed  to  death — others  joined  in  spreading 
the  alarm,  when  the  crowd  gave  way  and  released  him  from 
his  perilous  situation.  He  was  taken  out  of  the  house,  and 
when  he  returned,  a  proposition  was  made  to  adjourn  the 
meeting.  The  representatives  being  called,  answered  to  their 
names,  and  the  meeting  adjourned,  to  meet  at  10  o'clock  the 
next  day,  without  a  dissenting  voice. 

Question  by  Attorney  for  the  State. — According  to  the  prac- 
tice and  discipline  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  was  the  motion  in 
order  for  the  appointment  of  a  clerk,  when  the  regular  clerk 
was  present  and  at  the  table?  It  was  not  in  order,  according 
to  the  usage  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends  in  Virginia. 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


83 


Is  it  the  practice  at  that  Yearly  Meeting,  or  any  other  which 
you  are  acquainted  with,  to  have  door-keepers?  It  is  the 
practice  in  that  meeting  to  appoint  persons  to  see  that  order 
is  preserved — as  to  the  practice  of  other  meetings,  I  am  not 
acquainted  with  it. 

Question  by  dcfenda7its'  counsel. — Had  you  not  expected,  pre- 
vious to  the  commencement  of  this  Yearly  Meeting,  that  there 
would  be  some  dissention  amongst  its  members?  If  so,  state 
your  reasons  for  that  expectation?  I  am  quite  a  stranger  in 
this  country,  and  had  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  dissen- 
tions  that  exist.  Had  you  not  learned  from  the  members  of 
this  Yearly  Meeting,  that  there  were  disscntions  among  its 
members?  I  had.  Had  you  learned  from  any  of  them  that 
there  would  be  an  attempt  made  to  exclude  a  part  of  the  mem- 
bers from  the  house?  I  never  learned  from  any  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Yearly  Meeting,  that  any  attempt  would  be  made 
to  exclude  any  individuals,  who,  under  the  discipline  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  had  a  right  to  be  there.  Had  you  learned 
from  any  of  them  that  a  difficulty  was  expected  at  the  Yearly 
Meeting?  I  believe  those  with  whom  I  associated  were  not 
in  the  counsel  of  those  that  produced  difficulty.  Are  not  the 
members  of  this  meeting  divided  by  their  dissentions  into  two 
parties?  I  have  understood  that  they  were  so.  By  what  dis- 
tinguishing names  are  these  two  parties  generally  designated? 
Where  a  separation  has  taken  place  iu  meetings,  and  more 
especially  within  the  limits  of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting, 
I  believe  the  followers  of  Elias  Hicks  are  generally  called 
separatists-— where  that  disunion  in  meeting  has  not  taken 
place,  they  are  generally  denominated  Hicksites — Friends 
have  not  changed  the  name  by  which  they  were  formerly 
designated.  What  name  do  those  of  whom  you  speak,  as  be- 
ing called  separatists,  or  Hicksites,  give  themselves?  I  have 
understood  they  called  themselves  Friends.  Do  they  not  claim 
to  belong  to  the  ancient  society  of  Friends?  I  have  under- 
stood they  make  such  pretensions.  What  proportion  of  the 
members  of  the  ancient  society  Friends,  within  the  limits  of 
the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting,  belong  to  this  party?  I 
have  no  knowledge  of  the  facts  relating  to  that  question.  And 
further  this  deponent  saith  not. 

Flkming  Bates. 
Affirmed  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  16th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1828. 

William  Smith,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 
Deposition  of  Mel  Coffin. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  at  the  house  of  George  W. 
Banks,  in  Mount  Pleasant,  on  the  15th  day  of  September,  1828, 
between  the  hours  of  8  A.  M.  and  9  P.  M.  in  pursuance  of  the 


84 


Trial  of  Friends 


within  notice,  Abel  Coffin,  of  Guilford  county,  N.  C.  who 
being  duly  affirmed,  deposeth  and  saith. 

On  the  morning  of  the  8th  inst.  I  attended  Friends  Yearly 
Meeting,  at  Mount  Pleasant,  which  met  near  the  tenth  hour  in 
the  morning.  Jonathan  Taylor  opened  the  meeting — Amos 
E.  Kimberly,  assistant,  called  the  representatives,  but  was  in- 
terrupted by  a  very  disorderly  club,  or  mob,  who  rushed  for- 
wards with  great  violence,  pushing  and  crowding  towards  the 
table,  entirely  contrary  to  all  order  of  the  society  of  Friends,  and 
got  to  the  table.  In  trying  to  remove  the  clerk  from  the  table, 
or  the  table  from  the  clerk,  they  broke  the  table  in  pieces, 
and  hurt  Jonathan  Taylor  very  seriously — he  had  to  be  taken 
home,  and  kept  his  bed  for  a  day  or  two.  They  having  nomi- 
nated their  clerk,  'and  by  violence  taken  possession  of  the 
clerk's  place,  Friends  then  adjourned  to  the  10th  hour  the 
next  day,  and  met  near  the  time  adjourned  to;  but  were  not 
allowed  the  privilege  of  holding  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio, 
in  Mount  Pleasant  meeting  house — these  same  people  still 
holding  the  meeting  house,  and  refusing  to  give  possession  to 
Friends  to  hold  their  Yearly  Meeting.  They  then  assembled 
in  the  yard — held  a  meeting,  and  then  adjourned  to  Short 
Creek  meeting  house. 

Questioned  by  Attorney  for  the  State. — Of  what  Yearly  Meet- 
ing of  the  society  of  Friends  are  you  a  member?  Of  North 
Carolina.  Is  it,  or  is  it  not  the  usual  practice  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  that  society  to  have  door-keepers,  when  transact- 
ing the  business  appertaining  to  such  meeting?  If  so,  how 
long  has  that  practice  continued,  and  what  are  the  duties  of  such 
door-keepers?  It  is,  and  has  been  the  practice  ever  since  my 
recollection.  Their  duties  are  to  keep  the  meeting  select,  and 
to  prevent  those  who  have  not  a  right  in  the  society  of  Friends, 
from  entering  the  meeting.  According  to  the  rules  of  the 
society  of  Friends,  was  the  motion  for  the  appointment  of  a 
clerk  in  or  out  of  order,  when  the  regular  clerk  was  present 
and  at  the  table?  Out  of  order,  and  contrary  to  the  discipline 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  which  I  am  a  member. 

Questioned  by  defendants'  counsel. — Did  not  those  persons  of 
whom  you  speak,  as  a  club,  or  mob,  claim  to  be  members  of 
Ohio  Yearly  Meeting?  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  heard  them 
claim  to  be  members  of  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting;  nmther  do 
I  think  they  were.  What  were  the  acts  of  violence  of  which 
you  speak?  They  with  force  and  violence  pressed  forwards  to- 
wards the  clerk's  table,  and  in  attempting  to  take  it  broke  it  to 
pieces.  Did  not  these  persons  of  whom  you  speak,  proceed 
to  hold  a  Yearly  Meeting  in  Friends'  meeting  house,  and  were 
not  the  doors  open  at  all  times  for  the  admission  of  Friends 
belonging  to  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting?    As  to  what  they  did,  I 


al  SteuLenvillt,  Ohio. 


85 


did  not  witness,  as  Friends  adjourned  their  meeting  and  left 
the  house, — the  doors  were  open.  Did  you  see  any  threaten- 
ing gestures,  or  menaces  of  injury  to  any  one,  during  the 
transaction  of  which  you  have  spoken?  The  conduct  of  many 
was  really  alarming  to  me,  and  I  did  apprehend  danger.  I 
think  they  would  have  soon  committed  further  outrages. — 
And  further  this  deponent  saith  not. 

Abel  Coffin. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me, 

William  Smith,  Jr.  Justice  of  the  Peace. 

Deposition  of  Thomas  Ladd. 

The  deposition  of  Thomas  Ladd,  of  the  city  of  Richmond, 
and  state  of  Virginia,  taken  this  16th  day  of  September,  1828, 
at  the  office  of  George  W.  Banks,  in  Mount  Pleasant,  Jeffer- 
son county,  in  a  suit  now  depending;  wherein  the  state  of 
Ohio  is  complainant,  and  David  Hilles  and  Isaac  James  are 
defendants. 

This  deponent,  being  first  duly  affirmed,  deposeth  and  saith, 
that  he  is  a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends,  belonging  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Virginia — that  he  attended  a  meeting  for 
public  worship  at  Friends'  meeting  house,  in  Mount  Pleasant, 
Ohio,  in  the  afternoon,  on  First-day,  the  7th  inst. ;  and  soon 
after,  if  not  before  the  meeting  was  gathered,  a  person,  who, 
this  deponent  was  informed,  was  Elisha  Dawson,  got  up  and 
spoke  a  considerable  time;  when  he  sat  down,  Amos  Peaslee 
stood  up,  and  also  spoke  a  considerable  time;  when  Jonathan 
Taylor  and  Elisha  Bates  requested  him  to  sit  down,  informing 
the  meeting  that  the  said  Peaslee  was  not  a  member  of  our 
society;  that  he  had  been  regularly  disowned  by  the  Monthly 
Meeting  to  which  he  had  belonged;  and  that  a  copy  of  his 
paper  of  disownment  had  been  delivered  to  him,  I  think,  on 
the  day  before,  and  this  circumstance  I  suppose  to  be  one  of 
the  reasons  that  induced  the  said  Taylor  and  Bates,  to  oppose 
him  so  publicly  as  they  did — such  a  course  Ijcing  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  rules  of  our  society.  This  deponent  also 
attended  a  committee  of  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  at  the  same 
meeting  house,  on  the  following  morning,  about  8  o'clock,  on 
the  subject  of  the  civilization,  &c.  of  the  Indians.  After  being 
there  some  time,  a  considerable  gathering  was  heard  about 
the  doors,  and  the  committee  adjourned  to  meet  at  another 
time;  soon  after  which,  directions  were  given,  but  by  whom 
I  know  not,  to  open  the  doors;  this  was  before  the  hour  of  10 
o'clock,  the  time  of  the  meeting  for  transacting  the  business  of 
the  society;  the  south  door,  and  one  of  the  east  end  doors  were 
then  thrown  open,  through  which  the  gathering  was  pretty 
rapid.  I  distinctly  understood  that  (loor-kec|)crs  were  placed  at 
the  doors  for  the  purpose  of  warning  all  those  persons  who 
1  I 


86 


Triiil  ijf  Friends 


had  no  ri^hl  of  nu-nibersliip,  or  righl  to  come  in,  not  to  enter. 
As  the  gathering  continued,  the  rush  appeared  to  increase; 
from  which  circumstance,  I  concluded  that  persons  who  had  no 
right  to  enter  were  coming  in,  though  1, being  an  entire  stranger, 
could  not  tell  w  ho  had  not  the  right  of  entering,  nor  many  who 
had.    During  one  of  these  rushes,  some  persons  pushed  with 
great  rapidity,  to  the  other  east  end  door,  and  opened  it;  but 
who  they  were,  I  know  not.     At  or  about  the  same  time,  some 
rushed  with  the  like  rapidity  through  the  partition  door,  or 
shutters,  into  the  women's  apartment,  for  the  purpose,  as  I 
supposed,  of  opening  any  out-door  that  might  be  there  shut. 
Finally,  the  different  and  violent  pressures  from  without,  lite- 
rally filled  the  house.    About  this  time  an  ancient  Friend  ap- 
peared in  supplication;  soon  after  the  close  of  which,  a  person 
whom  I  did  not  know,  rose  and  observed,  that  from  the  dis- 
qualification of  the  clerk  (from  some  cause  which  I  do  not 
distinctly  recollect,)  the  duty  devolved  on  him,  to  propose  the 
appointment  of  some  other  person  to  act  in  his  place,  or  words 
to  that  import.   The  meeting  was  informed  that  the  clerk  was 
at  the  table,  or  in  his  place;  soon  after,  or  about  the  same 
time,  Jonathan  Taylor,  the  previous,  regularly  appointed  clerk, 
opened  the  meeting,  and  was  regularly  proceeding  in  tlie  busi- 
ness thereof,  when  David  Hilles  was  named  by  some  one  as  a 
suitable  person  to  act  as  clerk,  which,  by  the  voices  of  some 
others,  was  approved,  and  he,  David  Hilles,  was  urged  to  go 
to  the  table.     But  the  passage  way,  as  well  as  the  benches 
near,  and  towards  the  clerk's  table,  was  closely  filled  with  those 
who  were  not  disposed  to  give  way  for  David  Hilles  to  go  to 
the  table;  nevertheless,  the  advocates  of  his  appointment,  al- 
most incessantly  called  out  to  persevere  in  getting  him  to  the 
table,  which  created  a  great  uproar  and  confusion,  which  were 
increased  by  an  alarm  being  given  that  the  gallery  or  house 
was  falling.    These  proceedings  created  in  my  mind  sensa- 
tions of  utter  dismay,  and  feelings  truly  appalling;  and  con- 
stituted what  I  consider  the  greatest  riot,  I  ever  witnessed  in 
a  large  assembly  of  people  of  any  description  whatever,  more 
especially,  an  assembly  collected  for  the  performance  of  re- 
ligious duty.     Although  most,  if  not  all  the  other  Yearly 
Meetings  on  this  continent  (several  of  which  I  have  attended) 
are  in  the  practice  of  appointing  door-keepers,  yet  it  has  not 
been  found  necessary  for  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Virginia  to 
do  so,  as  that  Yearly  Meeting  is  a  small  one,  and  held  in 
a  country  place;  and  has  never,  in  my  recollection,  been  in- 
truded on  by  persons  having  no  right  of  membership  with  us. 
Were  it  otherwise,  I  have  no  doubt  they  would  adopt  the 
practice.     Neither  in  our  own,  nor  in  any  other  Yearly  Meet- 
ing of  Friends,  I  ever  attended,  (except  the  present  one  here,) 
did  I  ever  know  a  motion  made  for  the  appointment  of  a 


at  Stcubcitville,  Oliio. 


87 


clerk,  when  the  regular  clerk  was  in  his  place;  and  such  a  pro- 
cedure is  entirely  out  of  the  regular  order  of  the  society. 

Question  by  defendants'  Counsel. — Was  not  David  Hilles 
nominated  as  clerk  before  Jonathan  Taylor  had  opened  the 
meeting-?  This  question  is  distinctly  answered  in  the  body  of 
my  deposition,  that  the  nomination  was  afterwards.  Did  you 
see  any  acts  of  violence,  menaces,  or  threatening  gestures  on 
the  part  of  either  of  the  defendants?  I  do  not  personally 
know  cither  of  them;  of  course,  my  answer  must  be  in  the 
negative.  If  the  clerk  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  appointed  at  a 
previous  meeting,  had  disqualitied  himself  for  acting  as  clerk, 
would  it  not  be  proper  for  the  meeting  to  proceed  to  fill  the 
vacancy  by  the  appointment  of  another  clerk.'  I  never  knew 
a  circumstance  of  this  kind  to  occur  in  any  Yearly  Meeting 
which  I  have  attended;  but  the  usual,  if  not  the  universal  prac- 
tice, of  appointing  the  clerks  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  is,  for  the 
representatives  of  the  different  Quarterly  Meetings  to  confer 
together,  and  bring  forward  the  name  of  a  suitable  person  to 
act  in  that  station.    And  further  this  deponent  saith  not. 

Thomas  Ladd. 

Affirmed  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  16th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1828. 

Willi  am  Smith,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 
Deposition  of  James  Stanton. 

Personally  appeared  before  mc,  at  the  house  of  George  W. 
Banks,  in  Mount  Pleasant,  on  the  16th  day  of  September, 
1828,  between  the  hours  of  8  o'clock,  A.  M.  and  9  o'clock,  P. 
M.,  James  Stanton,  of  Warren  County,  State  of  Ohio,  who,  be- 
ing duly  affirmed,  dcposcth  and  saith: 

That  he  is  a  mem!)cr  of  the  society  of  Friends  of  Indiana 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  that  he  attended  at  Mount  Pleasant  meeting 
house,  on  the  8th  of  the  present  month,  al)out  8  o'clock,  A.  M. 
with  a  committee  on  Indian  concerns.  This  committee  adjourn- 
ed a  little  before  10  o'clock,  to  give  way  to  the  Yearly  Meeting, 
when  the  doors  were  requested  to  be  opened,  and  were  so 
opened  for  Friends  generally.  I  discovered  considerable  dis- 
order, and  several  young  men  coming  in  hastily  and  rushing 
towards  the  gallery.  One  or  more  passed  on  and  opened  the 
partition  door,  and  went  into  the  women's  apartment  in  a 
disorderly  manner,  as  I  supposed,  to  open  a  door  or  doors  in 
that  apartment,  to  make  way  for  persons  to  come  in,  who  had 
not  a  right  to  meml)ership  in  the  society.  I  was  accordingly 
of  the  opinion,  that  it  was  premeditated  to  disturb  the  Yearly 
Meeting.  And  although  the  confusion  still  seemed  to  increase, 
our  friend  Thomas  Shillitoe,  from  England,  appeared  in  sup- 
plication, which  appeared  to  produce  a  stillness  for  awhile. 


88 


Trial  oj  Friends 


Soon  after,  a  person,  who,  I  have  since  understood,  was  Israel 
French,  said  it  devolved  on  him  to  inform  the  meeting,  that  the 
present  clerk  had  become  disqualified  for  serving  the  meeting 
as  clerk,  by  his  conduct  the  day  before,  and  proposed  that  an- 
other person  should  be  appointed  to  fill  that  station,  (or  words 
to  that  import.)  About  this  time,  Jonathan  Taylor,  clerk, 
read  the  opening  minute,  and  Amos  E.  Kimberly,  assistant 
clerk,  called  the  names  of  the  representatives,  who,  with  few 
exceptions,  were  present,  and  answered  to  their  names.  It  is  my 
impression,  that  during  the  time  the  assistant  clerk  was  calling 
the  names  of  the  representatives,  David  Hilles  was  nominated 
for  clerk,  which  was  approved  of  by  some  persons,  and  opposed 
by  others,  who  stated  that  the  regular  clerk  was  then  at  the  ta- 
ble. David  Hilles  was  repeatedly  urged  to  go  to  the  table,  and 
violence  was  used  by  his  party,  to  make  way  for  him  to  get  to 
the  table.  And  after  great  exertion  by  himself  and  party,  he 
arrived  at  the  place  near  where  the  clerks  were  seated  ;  and 
proceeded  to  read  what  I  suppose  they  called  an  opening  mi- 
nute; soon  after  which,  a  proposition  was  made  by  Friends  to 
adjourn  the  meeting,  until  10  o'clock  the  next  day,  which  was 
united  with  by  the  representatives  and  Friends,  without  a  dis- 
senting voice. 

I  have  been  a  member  of  Indiana  Yearly  Meeting  for  several 
years,  and  it  has  been  the  uniform  practice  of  that  Yearly 
Meeting,  to  have  door-keepers  to  keep  the  meeting  select,  that 
is,  to  prevent  persons  who  are  not  members,  and  such  as  are 
under  dealing  in  their  respective  Monthly  Meetings,  from  in- 
truding on  the  meeting.  And  being  situated  where  I  could 
observe  the  door-keepers,  it  appeared  impossible  for  them  to 
discharge  the  duties  that  devolved  on  them. 

Questioned  by  Attorney  for  the  State. — According  to  the  rules 
of  discipline  of  your  meeting,  was  the  motion  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  clerk  in  order,  when  the  regular  clerk  was  present 
and  at  the  table?  I  did  consider  it  entirely  out  of  order,  and 
contrary  to  our  discipline. 

Questioned  by  defendants''  counsel. — Are  the  rules  and  disci- 
pline of  your  Yearly  Meeting  binding  upon  the  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting?  I  do  not  think  they  are.  In  case  of  the  death  or 
incapacity  of  the  clerk  of  your  Yearly  Meeting,  Avhat  would  be 
the  method  of  appointing  a  clerk,  to  open  the  Yearly  Meeting? 
I  think  the  representatives  would  be  requested  to  withdraw, 
and  bring  forward  the  name  of  a  suitable  person.  Are  any 
persons  recognised  as  representatives  to  the  Yearly  Meeting, 
until  they  have  presented  the  evidence,  of  their  being  such,  to 
the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  do  not  suppose  they  would  be  known. 
The  names  of  the  representatives  arc  carried  forward  in  the 
reports,  from  the  Quarlcrly  Meetings,  and  delivered  to  the 


at  Stcubcnvilk,  Ohio. 


89 


clerk.  The  clerk  Uien  reucls  llicir  names,  and  announces  them 
to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  Can  the  representatives  be  known  to 
the  meeting,  till  their  names  have  been  called  by  the  clerk? 
They  arc  not  generally  known,  until  their  names  are  called  by 
the  clerk.  Would  the  representatives  have  any  authority  to 
nominate  to  the  meeting,  a  clerk,  until  a  minute  had  been  made 
in  the  records  of  the  meeting,  authorizing  them  to  do  so?  I 
think  it  would  be  proper  for  them  to  bring  forward  a  name,  if 
there  was  no  person  to  act  as  clerk.  And  further  this  deponent 
saith  not. 

James  Stanton. 
Affirmed  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  16th  day  of  Sep- 
temper,  1828. 

William  Smith,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 

Deposition  of  Josiah  Tatum. 

Also  at  the  house  of  the  said  George  W.  Banks,  in  Mount 
Pleasant,  on  the  16th  day  of  September,  between  8  o'clock  A. 
M.  and  9  P.  M.,  personally  appeared  before  me,  Josiah  Ta- 
tum, of  Gloucester  county,  New-Jersey,  who,  being  duly  af- 
firmed, deposeth  and  saith. 

That  on  the  morning  of  the  8th  inst.  about  8  o'clock,  I  went 
to  Friends'  meeting  house  at  Mount  Pleasant,  to  attend  a  com- 
mittee of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  appointed  for  the  civilization, 
Sec.  of  the  Indians.  That  committee  adjourned  to  another 
day,  and  towards  10  o'clock,  the  hour  appointed  for  the  Year- 
ly Meeting  to  assemble,  the  front  door  and  one  of  the  end 
doors  were  opened  for  the  admission  of  members  of  our  reli- 
gious society.  A  great  crowd  was  collected  around  the  house, 
and  I  frequently  saw  persons,  whom  I  supposed  to  be  door- 
keepers, remonstrating  with  individuals.  The  noise  and  dis- 
order increased,  till,  at  length,  I  saw  a  person  wedging  himself 
among  the  door-keepers,  and  breaking  through  them  with 
great  violence.  He  forced  himself  into  the  house.  After  this 
entrance,  the  disorder  continued  to  increase,  and  rush  after 
rush  was  made  into  the  house,  overpowering  and  completely 
throwing  out  of  their  ranks,  the  persons  stationed  at  the  doors, 
to  prevent  such  as  were  not  members  from  entering.  It  is 
always  intended,  that  the  meetings  for  business  of  the  religious 
society  of  Friends  should  be  held  select;  that  is,  that  they 
should  be  attended  only  by  such  as  are  members  of  the  socie- 
ty: and  I  believe  that  those  who  were  thus  violent  in  their 
attempts  to  enter  the  house,  and  who  did  thus  violently  enter 
it,  were  such  as  had  not  a  right  to  attend  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
Being  a  stranger,  I  did  not  know  them  personally,  excepting, 
however,  Amos  Pcaslec,  whom  I  recognised  in  the  house,  and 
who  entered  during  this  alarming  tumult,  and  who  has  been 
regularly  disowned  by  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  which  he  was 


90 


Trial  of  Friends 


a  member.  The  house  became  full  to  overflowing.  A  per- 
son, whom  1  could  not  see,  proposed  that  the  meeting  should 
name  a  clerk;  though,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  observed,  that 
the  clerk  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  was  at  the  table.  Jonathan 
Taylor  soon  opened  the  meeting,  and  endeavoured  to  proceed 
with  its  business,  though  obliged  to  stop,  in  consequence  of 
the  clamour  and  uproar  that  prevailed.  David  Hilles  was 
named  to  go  to  the  table;  and  now  the  great  object  of  the 
rioters  was  to  get  him  there.  I  have  said,  the  house  was  full; 
the  passages  were  apparently  one  solid  coluinn,  and  as  Friends 
remained  firm  in  their  places,  it  was  evident  to  the  rioters  that 
David  Hilles  could  not  be  got  to  the  table  without  great  diffi- 
culty. An  alarm  was  given  that  the  galleries  were  falling; 
this,  however,  did  not  succeed.  Friends  remained  generally 
in  their  stations,  and  a  scene  of  tuTiiult  and  outrage  ensued,  to 
which,  perhaps,  no  religious  society,  quietly  seeking  the  en- 
joyment of  their  acknowledged  religious  rights,  were  ever  be- 
fore subjected,  under  a  free  government.  Jonathan  Taylor 
was  removed  from  the  table;  the  table  was  broken  to  pieces; 
part  of  it  was  shoved  along  under  my  feet;  a  person,  whom  I 
supposed  was  David  Hilles,  commenced  reading.  Friends 
perceived  that  the  business  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  could  not 
be  prosecuted  to  advantage.  Jonathan  Taylor,  and  his  assist- 
ant, Amos  E.  Kimberly,  again  called  the  representatives,  and 
the  meeting,  without  a  dissenting  voice,  that  I  heard,  adjourn- 
ed to  the  next  morning  at  10  o'clock;  about  which  time.  Friends 
gathered  in  the  yard,  but  the  house  was  found  to  be  still  in 
the  possession  of  these  same  rioters,  as  I  believe.  A  demand 
of  the  house  was  made,  in  the  name  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting; 
it  was  not,  hoyvever,  obtained.  The  Yearly  Meeting  was 
opened  in  the  yard,  by  the  assistant  clerk;  for  Jonathan  Tay- 
lor, the  clerk,  had  been  so  seriously  injured  in  the  riot  of  the 
preceding  day,  as  to  be  unable  to  attend.  It  subsequently  ad- 
journed, to  meet  again  the  next  morning,  at  Short  Creek  meet- 
ing house,  where  it  is  still  sitting. 

Question  by  Attorney  for  the  State. — Will  you  state  what  Year- 
ly Meeting  you  are  a  member  of,  and  whether  it  is,  or  is  not, 
the  usual  practice  of  your  meeting,  to  have  door-keepers  sta- 
tioned at  the  doors,  when  transacting  business,  appertaining 
to  such  meeting?  If  yea,  how  long  has  that  practice  existed, 
and  what  is  the  particular  duty  of  the  door-keepers?  I  am  a 
member  of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting.  Ever  since  my  re- 
collection, it  has  Ijcen  deemed  necessary  to  have  door-keepers 
in  attendance;  their  duly  is,  to  see  that  none  enter  but  such  as 
are  members  of  the  society  of  Friends,  and  if  any  such  should 
enter,  to  remove  them.  According  to  the  rules  of  the  socie- 
ty, was  the  motion  for  the  appointment  of  a  clerk,  in,  or  out  of 
order,  when  the  regular  clerk  was  present,  and  at  the  table? 


at  Steubenvillt^  Ohio. 


91 


I  consider  it  in  direct  violation  of  the  order  of  society:  I  never 
knew  of  such  a  thing  being-  done  in  a  Yearly  Meeting.  Were 
you  present  at  the  meeting  of  Friends  at  Mount  Pleasant,  the 
afternoon  previous  to  the  8th  instant?  if  so,  will  you  state 
what  knowledge  you  have,  as  to  any  disturbance  of  that  meet- 
ing, by  whom,  and  in  what  manner?  I  was  present  on  the  af- 
ternoon of  the  7th  inst.  The  hour  appointed  for  the  assem- 
bly to  gather  was  3  o'clock:  five  minutes  before  three,  by 
my  watch,  Elisha  Dawson  rose,  and  spoke  a  considerable 
length  of  time;  very  soon  after  he  sat  down,  Amos  Peaslee 
rose,  and  also  spoke  for  several  minutes,  when  he  was  request- 
ed to  sit  down  by  Jonathan  Taylor;  he,  however,  disregarded 
the  request,  and  then  Elisha  Bates  repeated  Jonathan  Taylor's 
request.  While  Elisha  Bates  was  speaking,  there  was  great 
disorder,  and  a  number  of  persons  cried  out,  in  great  rudeness, 
"  carry  Elisha  Bates  out."  Will  you  state  why  Amos  Peas- 
lee was  recjuested  to  sit  down?  Because  he  was  known  not  to  be 
a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends;  and  because  it  was  consi- 
dered an  unreasonal)le  imposition,  that  any  person,  not  a  mem- 
ber, should  be  permitted  to  disturb  our  religious  meeting. 

Question  by  defendants'  counsel. — Do  you  know  whether,  or 
not,  those  persons  who  were  refused  admittance  by  the  door- 
keepers, were  members  of  the  society  of  Friends?  \  am  a 
stranger  in  this  part  of  the  country,  and  knew,  comparatively, 
but  few  persons  in  the  house.  I  never  knew  of  door-keepers 
in  attendance  in  our  meetings  for  business,  to  refuse  admit- 
tance to  members  of  the  society,  if  they  were  known  to  be 
such,  unless  they  had  become  offenders,  and  were,  as  such, 
under  the  care  of  their  Monthly  Meetings.  Was  David  Hilles 
nominated  for  clerk,  before  or  after  the  old  clerk  had  read  a 
minute  opening  the  meeting?  I  cannot  be  positive  on  this 
point;  my  impression  is,  that  he  was  not  nominated  till  after 
Jonathan  Taylor  had  opened  the-meeting.  Was  not  his  nomi- 
nation approved  by  a  large  number  of  the  meeting?  There 
was  a  loud  clamour  of  approbation,  but  that  it  proceeded  from 
persons  who  had  a  right  to  be  in  the  house,  much  less  to  give 
a  voice  in  the  meeting,  I  should  not,  on  the  affirmation  I  have 
taken,  dare  to  say.  Did  any  considerable  number  object  to 
that  nomination?  Yes,  a  large  number  objected;  it  was  re- 
plied, that  the  clerk  was  at  the  tal)le.  Was  there  the  greater 
number  who  opposed  or  objected  to  that  nomination?  It  is 
impossible  for  me  to  say;  the  question  was  never  before  the 
meeting.  Do  you  know  who  gave  the  alarm  that  the  galleries 
were  falling?  I  do  not  know.  Do  you  know  that  the  alarm, 
that  the  galleries  were  falling,  had  any  connexion  with  the 
appointment  of  the  clerk,  which  was  going  on  in  the  meeting? 
The  appointment  of  clerk  was  not  going  on  in  the  meeting. 
He  had  been  appointed  the  year  before:  the  discipline  of  this 


92 


Trial  of  I'  riends 


Yearly  Meeting  inukes  it  his  duty  to  serve  the  first  sitting  of 
the  year  after  his  appointment.  That  the  alarm  had  connexion 
with  the  circumstances,  that  were  wished  to  be  brought  about 
by  those  who  raised  the  tumult,  I  decidedly  believe.  When 
you  say  that  the  meeting,  without  a  dissenting  voice  that  you 
heard,  adjourned,  who  do  you  mean  to  be  understood  were  the 
meeting?  I  mean  to  convey  the  idea,  that  I  have  no  recollec- 
tion of  hearing  a  dissenting  voice  from  any  person  in  the 
house.  Did  the  representatives  from  the  different  Quarterly 
Meetings  adjourn  the  Yearly  Meeting,  or  did  the  body  of  the 
meeting  adjourn  it?  In  the  midst  of  the  confusion  that  had 
prevailed,  a  proposition  was  made  to  adjourn  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing to  the  next,  day;  no  objection  was  made;  the  names  of  the 
i-cpresentatives  were  called,  and  they,  I  think,  unanimously 
confirmed  the  adjournment.  Had  not  David  Hilles  opened 
the  meeting  as  clerk,  before  the  adjournment  you  speak  of  in 
your  last  answer?  Yes,  with  the  violence  that  was  used,  he 
might  have  done  any  thing.  Are  not  the  members  of  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends  now  divided  into  two  parties?  The  members 
of  the  society  of  Friends  may  have  different  views,  but  the  so- 
ciety itself  retains  its  integrity,  and  is  one  united  and  undivid- 
ed body.  By  what  distinguishing  names,  are  those,  entertain- 
ing different  views,  designated?  The  name  of  the  society 
of  Friends,  or  Quakers,  is  well  known.  I  do  not  know  of 
any  other  name  in  our  society:  the  names,  separatists,  or 
Hicksites,  and  to  whom  these  names  apply,  are  also  well 
known.  Are  not  a  part  of  the  members  of  the  society  of 
Friends,  sometimes  called  separatists,  or  Hicksites?  There 
•was  a  general  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  in  the  Tenth-month 
last,  of  individuals  who  had  seceded  from  the  society  of 
Friends;  many,  or  most  of  whom,  had,  or  have  been  disowned 
by  the  society  of  Friends:  this  body  are  often  called  separat- 
ists, or  Hicksites.  What  proportion  of  the  ancient  society 
of  Friends,  within  the  limits  of  the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, belong  to  the  general  meeting  you  spoke  of  in  your  last 
answer?  I  have  no  means  of  ascertaining,  with  any  degree  of 
precision.  I  have  attended  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  for 
a  number  of  years  past:  I  attended  it  in  the  Fourth-month 
last,  and  I  believe  it  could  not  have  lacked  one-fourth  of  its 
usual  size.  Do  not  the  members  of  the  general  meeting  you 
speak  of,  claim  to  be  the  ancient  society  of  Friends?  I  never 
attended  one  of  its  sittings,  having  no  right  to  do  so,  and  am 
unacquainted  with  its  claims.  Has  not  the  Baltimore  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Friends,  recognised  it  as  a  Yearly  Meeting  of  the 
society  of  Friends?  I  do  not  know  that  it  has.  What  is  the 
relative  proportion  of  those  parties  who  attended  the  last  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting,  on  the  8th  instant?  I  cannot  say  with  pre- 
cision,but  after  the  Yearly  Meelinghad  adjourned,  and  Friends 


(It  Sieubfiivillt,  Ohio.  9J 

had  left  the  Iiouse,  I  should  suppose  generally,  I  went  to  the 
door  of  the  house,  and  took  a  survey  of  the  persons  then  in  it, 
and  taking  them  all,  black  and  white,  they  might  amount  to 
nearly  one-third  of  the  number  who  had  at  first  assembled. 

(Question  by  the  Attorney  for  the  State. — You  have  staled 
that  Amos  Peaslee  was  disowned  by  the  meeting  of  Friends, 
of  which  he  had  been  a  member;  will  you  state  how  you  be- 
came possessed  of  that  information  ?  I  am  clerk  of  that  meet- 
ing, to  wit,  Woodbury  Monthly  Meeting,  and  have  been  its 
clerk  for  several  years,  and  of  course  am  acquainted  with  all 
its  transactions,  and  am  in  possession  of  all  its  records;  and 
further,  on  the  morning  of  the  6th  instant,  I  put  a  copy  of  the 
minute  of  his  disownment  by  Woodbury  Monthly  Meeting 
into  his  hands. 

[The  defendants  objected  to  the  last  question  and  answer.] 
Have  you  seen  a  paper,  purporting  to  be  a  certificate  from 
the  society  of  Friends,  authorizing  Amos  Peaslee  to  travel  as 
a  minister,  issued  from  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Woodbury, 
dated  28th  of  Fourth-month,  1828;  as  also  one  from  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting  of  Salem,  bearing  date  the  1 5th  of  Fifth-month — 
and  if  so,  state  when  and  where  it  was,  and  whether  or  not  it  is 
what  it  purports  to  be — a  certificate  from  the  society  of 
Friends,  or  from  another  and  distinct  society?  Such  certifi- 
cates, one  of  which  is  marked  (N,)  in  the  possession  of  Ros- 
well  Marsh,  are  now  before  me.  I  do  not  consider  these  cer- 
tificates as  proceeding  from  meetings  belonging  to  the  society 
of  Friends.  Seth  Matlack  and  Anna  Peaslee,  who  have  signed 
one  of  them  as  clerks,  having  been  disowned  by  the  long  esta- 
blished Monthly  Meeting  of  Woodbury,  Avhich  is  on^  of  the 
constituent  branches  of  the  ancient  Yearly  Meeting  of  Phila- 
delphia :  and  further,  Samuel  \Vebster  is  at  this  time,  and 
has  been  for  several  years,  the  clerk  of  Salem  Quarterly 
Meeting  of  Friends  in  New  Jersey,  and  Salem  Quarterly 
Meeting  was  not  held  at  Woodbui-y  in  the  Fifth-month  last,  but 
at  Salem.  The  bodies  who  appear  to  have  issued  these  certifi- 
cates belong  to  that  general  association,  spoken  of  above  as 
having  assembled  in  Philadelphia  in  the  Tenth-month,  and  with 
this  association  the  society  of  Friends  have  no  correspon- 
dence. What  number  of  adults  compose  the  Woodbury 
Monthly  Meeting?  I  am  unable  to  say  with  precision.  Are 
there  seventy  ?  No,  I  should  not  think  there  were,  yet  there 
may  be.  Had  not  the  great  body  of  this  Monthly  Meeting 
appointed  as  clerks  of  the  meeting,  the  persons  whose  names 
are  signed  as  such,  to  the  certificates  you  have  above  referred 
to?  No — the  persons  referred  to  are  not  members  of  that 
Monthly  Meeting.  Do  they  not  reside  within  its  boundaries, 
and  claim  to  be  members  of  that  Monthly  Meeting?  They  do 
reside  within  its  limits — the  ccrlificates  will  show  their  claims 
12 


94, 


Trial  of  Friends 


— claims  are  not  always  right.  What  number  of  the  members 
of  that  Monthly  Meeting  united  in  their  clisovvnment,  and  in  the 
disownment  of  Amos  Peaslee  ?  I  never  heard  a  dissenting 
voice  on  the  subject  in  the  Monthly  Meeting,  that  I  have  any 
recollection  of.  What  number  attended  at  the  Monthly  Meet- 
ing at  which  these  persons  were  disowned,  and  what  number 
of  members  were  disowned  at  that  meeting?  1  am  not  able 
to  say.  Were  there  ten  present?  I  never,  I  believe,  was  at  a 
Monthly  Meeting  where  there  were  so  few  present  as  ten.  Is 
the  Woodbury  Monthly  Meeting,  to  which  you  allude,  now 
held  at  the  same  place  at  which  it  has  heretofore  been  held 
previous  to  any  dissention  in  the  meeting  ?  Yes. 
And  further,  this  deponent  saith  not. 

JosiAH  Tatum. 

Affirmed  and  subscribed  l)cfore  me,  this  16th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1828. 

William  Smith,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 

Stacey  Bevan  affirmed  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution.— Witness 
stated  that  he  was  at  the  conference  held  at  Plainfield,  and  it 
was  agreed  to  meet  in  the  usual  way,  at  the  meeting  of  Friends, 
both  Quarterly  and  Yearly,  notwithstanding  what  might  have 
been  done  previously— that  they  would  continue  to  hold  their 
meetings,  regardless  of  the  orthodox  meetings.  It  was  a 
general  conference  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  constituting 
the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.  There  were  a  number  of  persons 
who  were  considered  as  disowned  persons.  Borden  Stanton 
and  Isaac  James  were  present.  Is  there  any  order  of  society 
for  holding  such  a  meeting?  I  think  not;  there  were  one  or 
two  such  meetings  previous,  preparatory  to  this  great  con- 
ference. Do  you  know  whether  those  who  were  present  at 
that  conference,  and  entered  into  the  agreement,  were  present 
at  the  Yearly  Meeting  on  Monday  morning?  1  cannot  say;  I 
got  there  late,  and  soon  left  the  meeting.  Were  there  any 
orthodox  Friends  at  Plainfield  conference?  Not  one.  What 
was  the  agreement?  The  conclusion  was,  that  they  were 
generally  to  attend  the  Quarterly  and  Yearly  Meeting;  and 
then,  whatever  course  was  considered  most  prudent,  was  to  be 
adopted;  and  they  were  to  hold  a  meeting  at  Barnsville,  if 
they  were  not  received  by  Friends,  as  usual,  altogether.  It 
was  the  Hicksite  party  that  there  assembled?  Yes. 

By  Mr.  Tappan. — Were  you  a  delegate  there?  No.  Were  the 
resolutions  written  down,  and  then  read  over,  and  approved  by 
the  meeting?  They  might  have  been — I  do  not  know.  [Here 
a  paper  was  shown,  purporting  to  be  the  minutes  of  the  con- 
ference, which  were  read  by  the  witness.]    He  believed  them 


(i(  Slciihciivilh\  Ohio. 


05 


to  be,  ill  sul)slanc(',  an  account  of  wliat  passed  there.  They 
agreed  to  go  to  the  Yearly  and  Quarterly  Meeting,  and  to  use 
no  violence,  even  if  opposed.  It  was  understood  tliat  they 
were  to  go  and  assert  their  rights,  in  a  peaceable  and  orderly 
manner?  Yes. 

Bi/  Mr.  Wright.— ^Wns  Borden  Stanton  there?  He  was,  and 
occupied  the  highest  seat. 

By  Mr.  Tappan. — Did  you  know  that  Borden  Stanton  was 
disowned?  I  did  not  know  it,  oidy  by  hearsay — I  am  not  cer- 
tain that  he  was  disowned,  or  whether  it  was  upon  the  same 
principle  as  the  Concord  members  were  disowned. 

Peter  Sears  affirmed. — This  witness  gave  place  fdi-  the  ex- 
amination of  the  following  witness. 

George  Smith  affirmed. — Witness  was  at  the  Yearly  Meeting 
at  Mount  Pleasant,  Ohio,  on  Third-day  morning — saw  Eli 
Townsend  there,  who  said  he  had  s,taid  in  the  house  all  night 
with  others.    (Objected  to  by  Mr.  Tappan.) 

Mr.  Wright  said  he  wished  to  show  that  this  party  kept 
possession  of  the  house— that  it  was  done  in  concert.  That 
though  this  charge  was  against  Hilles  and  James,  for  disturb- 
ing the  meetitig  on  Second-day,  he  thought  it  proper  to 
show,  that  they  went  there  with  a  view  to  disturb  the  meet- 
ing; that  they  went  with  illegal  and  immoral  views. 

Mr.  Tappan. — It  is  attempted  to  show  that  these  men  were 
acting  in  concert  with  others,  but  it  has  not  been  shown,  other 
than  at  the  conference,  where  there  was  no  agreement  to  com- 
mit a  disturbance.  The  agreement  was,  to  conduct  themselves 
in  a  peaceable  and  orderly  manner,  according  to  the  usage  of 
the  society.  They  meant  to  assert  their  rights  as  members  of 
the  society,  yet  to  do  it  in  an, orderly  manner.  There  can, 
therefore,  from  this  evidence,  be  no  claim,  that  they  entered 
into  an  unlawful  agreement.  These  parties,  who,  it  is  said, 
were  confederates,  cannot  be  guilty,  unless  a  confederacy  be- 
tween these  men  and  those  individuals  could  be  made  out.  In 
meetings  of  this  kind,  it  must  be  apparent,  that  where  fifteen 
hundred  persons,  of  different  sentiments,  are  assembled,  they 
will  have  different  feelings,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
ought  to  assert  their  rights.  They  have  different  opinions  as 
to  their  religious  sentiments  and  rights,  in  that  meeting;  and 
it  is  probable  in  such  a  multitude,  there  were  a  great  diver- 
sity of  opinions,  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  proceeding.  Some  of 
hasty  temper,  would  be  for  proceeding  in  a  more  ardent  man- 
ner than  others  of  a  cooler  temperament.  Therefore,  to  make 
what  would  be  approved  by  the  most  hot-headed  in  feelings 
and  sentiments,  a  standard,  and  presume  that  all  others  were 
of  the  same  sentiments,  would  be  upon  the  face  of  it  unjust. 
If  any  such  concert  existed  bclwccn  the  prrsons  charged,  and 


9R 


7V(a/  nf  Fncii'ls 


Others,  why  are  not  the  others  called  to  prove  that  concert? 
Why  this  loose  hearsay  called  up,  when  there  is  better  evi- 
dence in  the  power  of  the  party  to  produce?  They  might  ex- 
amine any  individual,  who  they  think  had  entered  into  that 
agreement.  To  this  we  would  not  object;  but  we  do  object 
to  the  admission  of  hearsay,  through  a  third  person,  and  par- 
ticularly as  to  what  was  transacted  after  the  alleged  offence. 

The  Judge. — Where  you  prove  a  confederacy,  or  concert, 
the  declaration  of  all  tlic  parties  concerned  at  the  time,  are 
evidence  against  each.  And  all  the  previous  conduct — pre- 
vious declarations,  plans,  &c.  are  evidence  against  the  whole; 
but  it  does  not  occur  to  me,  that  the  doctrine  has  been  carried 
80  far  as  to  say,  where  a  part  are  under  prosecution,  that  the 
acts  of  others,  after  the  prosecution,  shall  be  evidence  against 
those  on  trial. 

Mr.  Wright. — We  claim  that  the  disturbance  continued  till 
the  next  day. 

Mr.  Ta.ppan  said  the  parties  were  tenants  in  common.  Eli- 
sha  Bates  had  no  more  right  to  exclusive  possession  than 
others.  There  is  no  proof  that  Hilles  and  his  party  attempt- 
ed to  expel  the  others — they  never  were  driven  out;  they 
abandoned  the  house,  and  went  off  without  any  compulsion. 
There  is  nothing  in  all  the  evidence  that  will  show  the  least 
intention  to  expel  them.  There  was  nothing  to  hinder  them 
from  taking  their  seats  on  Third-day.  This  is  distinctly 
proven.  Those  in  the  house  had  no  objection  to  their  co- 
tenants  coming  in  and  taking  possession. 

The  Judge  confirmed  the  objection. 

Peter  Sears.,  who  had  been  previously  affirmed,  read  a  mi- 
nute from  Stillwater  Monthly  Meeting,  disowning  Borden 
Stanton,  and  also  the  report  of  the  committee  appointed  to 
visit  him.  They  report,  that  he  persists  in  his  course,  and  a 
committee  were  appointed  to  inform  him  of  the  decision  of 
the  meeting.  Witness  also  read  a  report  of  the  committee 
who  waited  on  him  on  the  23d  of  Second-month,  1828,  with 
the  testimony  of  disownnient.  See. 

Cross-examination. — (From  some  cause,  not  now  recollected 
by  the  reporter,  this  cross-examination  was  not  very  perfectly 
recorded;  nor  can  he  discover  from  his  notes,  that  it  contains 
any  thing  material  in  the  case.  The  substance,  as  far  as  can 
be  found,  goes  to  inake  out  an  informality  in  the  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding against  the  individual  above-mentioned;  who,  it  ap- 
pears, was  disowned  upon  the  same  grounds  as  others  of  that 
Monthly  Meeting,  with  the  addition  of  informality.) 

Mr.  H'right  here  read  from  the  28th,  oTth,  and  88th  pages 
of  the  Discipline  of  f)hio  Yearly  Meeting,  and  the  prosecu- 
tion rested. 


(U  Steiihciivillr,  Ohio. 


01 


K  O  R   1  H  E    U  E  K  E  N  C  E  . 

Mr.  Marsh  read,  as  the  first  item  of  evidence,  llie  deeds  of 
trust  for  the  Yearly  Meeting  property  at  Mount  Pleasant, 
Ohio.   See  a  future  page.* 

Imposition  of  Richard  Barnard. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  this  16th  day  of  September, 
1828,  between  the  hours  of  8  o'clock  A.  M.  and  7  o'clock  P. 
M.  of  said  day,  at  the  house  of  Israel  French,  in  Mount  Plea- 
sant, Jefferson  County,  (to  which  place  the  taking  of  this  de- 
position was  adjourned  by  consent  of  the  attorneys,)  Richard 
Barnard,  who  being  first  duly  affirmed,  deposeth  and  saith, 

On  First-day  the  7th  inst.  I  attended  a  meeting  for  worship, 
in  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  held  by  the  society  of  Friends  in 
their  meeting  house  at  Mount  Pleasant;  Amos  Peaslee,  an  ap- 
proved minister  of  the  aforesaid  people,  travelling  with  a  mi- 
nute of  unity  from  the  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meeting  of  which 
he  is  a  member,  had  proceeded  some  time  in  a  solemn  and 
weighty  address  to  the  meeting,  when  Jonathan  Taylor  di- 
rected him  to  sit  down.  He,  however,  continued  his  address. 
Elisha  Bates  then  rose,  and  called  him  by  name,  and  directed 
him  to  sit  down;  Elisha  continuing  to  speak — he  was,  by  sun- 
dry persons  unknown  to  me,  requested  to  sit  down.  Not  doing 
so,  I  heard  a  voice  from  some  person',  saying,  "carry  him  out." 
Many  then  rose  on  their  feet,  whom  Amos  addressed  in  this 
feeling  language — "  for  the  Lord's  sake,  be  still."  They  im- 
mediately took  their  seats;  Elisha  Bates  also  took  his  seat, 
and  made  no  further  interruption.  On  the  morning  of  the  8th, 
the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio  met  in  the  same  house.  As  I  was 
going  towards  the  meeting  house,  I  saw  a  number  of  men  who 
were  stationed  by  the  doors  of  the  house,  and  the  gates  of  the 
yard,  as  guardsj  who  attempted  to  stop  some  from  going  in. 
I  saw  some  make  several  attempts  to  go  in,  but  were  prevent- 
ed by  some  of  these  guards,  two  of  wholn  attempted  to  stop 
me,  as  I  was  about  to  enter  the  yard;  continuing  to  walk  on, 
they  proclaimed  after  me,  we  don't  acknowledge  thee."  As 
I  entered  the  door  of  the  house,  I  saw  the  guards  of  the  door 
trying  to  get  between  me  and  the  door,  but  the  crowd  was  so 
great  their  attempts  failed.  After  I  took  my  seat,  I  had  a  full 
view  of  the  front  seats;  they  were  stowed  entirely  full,  and 
even  standing  at  the  foot  of  the  steps  which  led  to  them.  And 
as  some  were  coming  into  the  house  ihey  beckoned  to  them, 
and  put  them  forward,  and  persons  would  rise  and  give  a  seat, 
and  come  down  to  the  common  floor,  and  pass  away.  Before 
I 

*  This  imporluiit  exliact,  for  wliicli  w  e  expect  to  be  indebted  to  the 
politeness  of  the  defendants'  counsel,  and  the  medium  of  the  mail,  though 
not  received  in  time  for  its  proper  place,  will,  we  hope,  be  inserted  in  a 
later  pa^fe  of  Hie  work, where  it  may  be  referred  to  by  the  index. 


91! 


Trial  of  Friends 


the  meeliiig  entered  ou  business,  a  Friend  observed  that  the 
recent  conduct  of  the  clerk  had  disqualified  him  from  being 
the  organ,  through  which  the  meeting  might  transact  its  busi- 
ness; he  therefore  thought  it  would  be  best  for  the  meeting  to 
name  a  Friend,  to  act  as  clerk  for  the  day,  that  he  might  come 
forward  and  open  the  meeting  ;  to  which  k  very  general  ex- 
pression of  unity  was  uttered'  by  the  meeting  at  large.  A 
Friend  then  offered  for  consideration  of  the  meeting,  the  name 
of  David  Hilles,  for  that  service,  whirh  was  generally  united 
with,  and  not  a  dissenting  voice  heard  by  me.  He  was  then 
called  to  the  table.  Some  person  observed  then,  that  the 
meeting  had  a  clerk,  and  directed  him  to  proceed  to  open  the 
meeting,  which  Jonathan  Taylor  did,  whilst  many  were  en- 
deavouring to  get  David  Hilles  to  come  to  the  table.  As  David 
began  to  advance,  some  persons  gathered  into  the  passage  and 
obstructed  the  way.  The  young  men  assisted  him.  They  found 
much  difficulty  in  getting  him  aloing.  They  met  with  much 
difficulty  in  the  passage,  as  many  collected  there  and  opposed 
them;  I  heard  some  say,  "be  firm,  Friends,  but  use  no  vio- 
lence." One  called  for  the  sheriff  to  take  such  men  out  of  the 
house.  On€  man  called  out,  James  Heald  is  using  violence, 
he  is  striking.  At  this  instant  one  man  was  sti-iking,  but  I  did 
not  know  him,  but  took  him  to  be  one  of  the  guards.  About 
this  time,  some  person  called  out,  "  the  gallery  is  falling;" 
upon  which  considerable  alarm  and  confusion  ensued;  when  it 
seemed  to  subside,  I  discovered  the  Friend  who  had  been 
called  to  the  table,  sitting  on  the  seat  near  to  it.  Some  of 
those  who  had  conducted  him  thither,  endeavoured  to  persuade 
Jonathan  Taylor  to  give  it  up  peaceably,  as  he  knew  it  was 
the  meeting's  wish  that  he  should.  He  replied,  "  we  will  not, 
while  we  are  able  to  hold  it;"  and  as  he  and  some  other  per- 
sons, were  endeavouring  to  get  it  nearer  to  their  side  of  the  pas- 
sage, others  were  engaged  to  get  it  nearer  to  David  Hilles, 
who  sat  on  the  other  side  of  the  passage.  It  being  thus  strain- 
ed both  ways,  went  to  pieces,  and  is  no  longer  a  table.  David 
Hilles  now  opened  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio,  and  some  per- 
son seemed  to  write  the  names  of  sundry  persons,  and  warned 
them  to  leave  the  house;  stating,  that  they  were  intruders. 
When  the  table  went  to  pieces,  the  weight  of  the  party  pulling 
on  the  side  of  Jonathan  Taylor,  fell  against  Jonathan,  and 
shoved  him  against  the  arm  of  the  bench,  and  -jeemed  to 
squeeze  him  so  hard,  that  some  of  the  young  men  discovering 
it,  used  endeavours  to  relieve  him.  Some  person  i"cad  a  minute 
of  adjournment,  and  those  styled  orthodox  left  the  house. 

Questioned  by  defendants'  counsel. — Where  is  your  place  of 
residence,  and  of  what  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends  are  you  a 
member.''  My  place  of  residence  is  Chester  County,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  I  belong  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends  held  in 


ul  Sleubtnvdle,  Oliio. 


99 


Pliilatlelphia,  for  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Delaware  and  ihe 
Eastern  Shore  of  Maryland.  Arc  the  members  of  the  society 
of  Friends  within  the  limits  of  the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meet- 
ing divided  into  two  parlies?  There  are  eleven  Quarterly 
Meetings  belonging  to  that  Yearly  Meeting,  all  of  which  are 
divided  except  one,  and  in  that  there  has  been  no  division. 
By  what  distinguishing  names  are  the  two  parlies,  into  which 
these  meetings  are  divided,  generally  designated?  Speaking 
of  the  world  at  large,  one  party  is  generally  styled  orthodox, 
while  the  other  party  is  sometimes  called  Hicksites,  and 
sometimes  separatists.  Neither  of  those  parties  acknowledge 
either  of  those  names.  Both  claim  the  name  of  the  society  of 
Friends.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Woodbury  Monthly  Meet- 
ing,, in  the  state  of  New  Jersey?  I  attended  that  Monthly 
Meeting,  in  the  latter  part  of  Twelfth,  or  the  beginning  of 
First-month  last.  Did  a  division  then  take  place  between 
the  members  of  that  meeting,  of  the  parties  you  have  above 
spoken  of?  If  so,  state  in  what  proportion,  as  to  numbers, 
they  divided.  A  division  that  day  took  place  in  that  Monthly 
Meeting.  There  were,  I  think,  seven  adult  persons,  members, 
besides  the  clerk  and  assistant,  who  withdrew  from  the  meet- 
ing, and  the  clerk  took  all  the  books  and  papers  with  him. 
To  which  of  the  above  parties  did  these  persons  who  with- 
drew belong?  They  were  of  those  called  orthodox.  What 
was  the  name  of  the  clerk  who  withdrew?  I  do  not  recollect. 
What  number  of  adult  members  remained  in  the  house,  when  the 
above  persons  had  withdrawn?  I  did  not  count  them  ;  I  sup- 
pose there  were  between  seventy  and  eighty.  Did  they  proceed 
to  elect  or  appoint  other  clerks  to  this  Monthly  Meeting? 
There  was  a  friend  called  to  the  table  to.  act  as  clerk  for  the 
day,  and  one  to  assist  him.  The  meeting  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  bring  forward  a  Friend  for  clerk,  and  one  to  assist 
him.  What  is  the  relative  proportion  of  the  members  of  these 
two  parties,  in  the  limits  of  the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting? 
Speaking  of  the  members  of  that  Yearly  Meeting  at  large,  the 
most  moderate  calculation,  which  in  my  opinion  can  in  truth 
be  made,  is,  that  five-sixths  of  them  are  united  in  the  attend- 
ance and  support  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  as  it  is  re-organized. 
The  one-sixth  hold  to  what  they  term  the  old  Yearly  Meeting, 
which  must  be  understood,  to  be  those  styled  orthodox.  To 
which  of  those  parties  does  the  undivided  Quarterly  Meeting 
belong?  That  Quarterly  Meeting  is  united  with,  and  is  a 
branch  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  that  has  been  re-organized.  The 
Yearly  Meeting  of  which  I  am  speaking  was  held  on^hc  second 
Second-day  of  Fourth-month  last;  the  old  Yearly  Meeting 
was"  held  on  the  third  Second-day  of  that  month,  which  those 
styled  orthodox  claim.  Have  any  other  Yearly  Meetings  of 
the  society  of  Friends  in  America,  recognised  the  re-organized 


ICH) 


IViul  of  Frienils 


Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  as  a  Yearly  Meeting  of 
the  society  of  Friends?  If  so,  state  what  Yearly  Meetings 
have  so  recognised  it.  In  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  Fourth- 
month  last,  an  epistle  was  received,  and  read,  from  Baltimore 
Yearly  Meeting,  addressed  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  the  socie- 
ty of  Friends,  to  be  held  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  second  Se- 
cond-day in  Fourth-month,  for  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey, 
Delaware  and  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Maryland.  There  was  an 
epistle  received  from  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  held 
on  the  second  Second-day  in  Fourth-rnonth  last,  which  was 
read  and  answered  in  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  held  in  Mount 
Pleasant  last  week. 

Questioned  by  Jittorney  for  the  State. — Are  not  the  society  of 
Friends  commonly  known  as  orthodox,  and  the  society  of 
Friends  commonly  known  as  separatists  or  Hicksites,  two  se- 
parate and  distinct  societies  in  Philadelphia,  Woodbury,  and 
Mount  Pleasant  in  Ohio.^  In  Philadelphia,  I  mean  the  Yearly 
Meeting  held  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  second  Second-day  in 
Fourth-month  last,  there  were  several  who  sat  at  that  Yearly 
Meeting,  that  were  of  those  styled  orthodox;  and  it  was  known 
to  the  meeting;  there  was  no  distinction  made  whatever.  The 
doors  were  open  to  any  that  were  known  to  be  members  of  the 
society.  Of  W oodbury  I  can  say  nothing ;  I  have  not  been  there 
since  the  day  I  mentioned.  At  Ohio  the  doors  were  opened; 
I  heard  a  Friend  declare  in  that  meeting,  that  those  styled  or- 
thodox were  at  liberty  to  come  in  when  they  should  choose, 
and  when  they  should  think  right,  in  any  of  the  meetings  .of 
discipline,  within  the  limits  of  our  Yearly  Meeting.  I  have 
never  seen  or  heard  any  distinction  held  up  by  those  who  are 
sometimes  called  separatists  or  Hicksites;  and  some  of  those 
styled  orthodox  frequently  attended  there.  Of  those  styled 
orthodox,  I  know  nothing  about  them.  I  never  attended  any  of 
their  meetings,  which  they  call  meetings  of  business.  I  do 
not  know  them  to  be  two  distinct  societies.  I  have  never  seen 
any  thing  that  induced  me  to  believe  they  were.  There  are 
two  distinct  Yearly  Meetings  in  Philadelphia — what  consti- 
tutes the  distinction  in  those  two  Yearly  Meetings.^  The  one- 
sixth  part  which  I  have  mentioned,  separated  from  the  body, 
and  hold  a  Yearly  Meeting  distinct  from  it.  Is  this  all  the  dis- 
tinction you  know  of?  It  is  my  full  meaning,  by  the  word 
distinction  made  use  of,  when  I  said  there  were  two  distinct 
Yearly  Meetings.  Are  you  not  a  member  of  the  re-organized 
Yearly  Meeting,  assuming  the  name  of  Friends,  and  entertain- 
ing the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks,  and  known  as  Hicksites  or 
separatists?  In  the  first  instance  we  do  not  assume;  we  think 
we  have  a  right  to  call  ourselves  the  society  of  Friends.  The 
Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meeting  of  which  I  am  a  member,  are 
branches  of  the  re-organized  Yearly  Meeting.  We  know  of  no 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


101 


doctrine  published  by  Elias  Hicks.  We  believe  in  those  doc- 
trines published  by  our  primitive  Friends.  We  own  the  same 
discipline  heretofore  established,  and  long  acted  under  by  the 
society.  Was  Elias  Hicks  present  at  the  meeting;  of  the  re- 
organized Yearly  Meeting  held  in  Philadelphia,  in  the  Fourth- 
month  last;  and  did  he  take  part  in  the  deliberations  of  that 
meeting?  He  was  there,  and  took  some  part,  which  is  com- 
mon for  all  Friends  travelling  in  the  ministry  to  take.  Did 
that  meeting  minute  the  attendance  of  Elias  Hicks,  with  unity 
and  approbation.^  I  am  not  quite  so  clear  on  that  point  as  I 
could  wish,  but  my  present  recollection  is,  there  was  a  minute 
made,  stating  that  his  company  and  religious  labours  were 
acceptable.  At  what  house  in  Philadelphia  was  the  re-orga- 
nized Yearly  Meeting  held?  In  the  Fourth-month  last,  men's 
Yearly  Meeting  was  held  in  Green  street  meeting  house;  that 
of  the  women  in  one  built  on  Cherry  street.  How  long  have 
those  meetings  been  held  at  those  places?  In  the  Tenth-month 
last,  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  women  Friends  was  held  in  Green 
street  meeting  house,  and  that  of  the  men  was  held  in  a  tem- 
porary shed  built  for  the  purpose  near  said  house;  this  was 
the  time,  and  this  was  the  place  in  which  Friends  met  in  order 
to  re-organize  the  Yearly  Meeting.  What  do  you  mean  by  re- 
organizing the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  mean  that  Friends  gene- 
rally believed  and  considered  the  Yearly  Meeting  virtually 
dissolved,  that  was  held  in  the  Fourth-month  preceding.  How 
was  that  meeting  dissolved?  The  meeting  at  the  close  of  the 
first  sitting,  directed  the  representatives  to  stay  together,  and 
propose,  at  the  next  sitting  of  the  meeting,  a  Friend  to  serve 
the  meeting  as  clerk,  and  one  to  assist  him.  When  the  meet- 
ing came  together,  the  representatives  were  still  in  session; 
when  the  meeting  was  opened,  one  of  them  stated,  that  they 
had  not  been  able  to  agree;  others  stated,  that  it  was  their  de- 
sire that  the  meeting  should  adjourn,  and  let  them  have  an 
opportunity  to  agree;  and  it  was  the  general  sense  of  the 
meeting  so  to  adjourn.  A  Friend,  however,  stated  to  the 
meeting,  that  it  had  been  the  practice  of  the  meeting,  when 
its  representatives  could  not  agree,  that  the  old  clerk  should 
serve  for  the  year;  we  have  no  evidence  of  that  fact,  how- 
ever. The  old  clerk  made  a  minute  of  his  own  appoint- 
ment, contrary  to  the  sense  and  judgment  of  much  the 
larger  part  of  the  meeting.  On  the  morning  of  the  next 
day,  at  our  next  sitting,  it  was  proposed  for  the  meeting 
to  adjourn,  without  any  time  mentioned,  in  order  for  Friends 
to  try  whether  they  could  not  come  together  at  some  future 
time  more  united.  This  proposition  was  not  acceded  to;  the 
business  of  the  meeting  in  some  sort  went  on;  several  matters 
of  importance  that  came  up,  on  the  reports,  were  not  acted  on 
in  consequence  of  the  disunity  that  appeared  in  the  meeting. 
13 


lot 


Trial  of  Friends 


Two  women  Friends  came  into  the  meeting  with  Information 
that  they  had  appointed  a  committee  of  women  Friends,  to  at- 
tend all  the  Quarterly  Meetings  and  Preparative  Meetings, 
which  constituted  our  Yearly  Meeting,  and  stated,  that  it  was 
the  request  of  their  meeting,  that  men  Friends  should  join 
them  in  a  similar  appointment.  This  measure  was  opposed  by  the 
general  body  of  the  meeting;  it  was,  however,  acted  upon,  and 
such  a  committee  appointed.  The  meeting  then  closed,  and  many 
Friends  left  the  place,  never  expecting  to  attend  it  again,  and 
therefore  considered  the  Yearly  Meeting  virtually  dissolved. 
They  went  directly  into  the  meeting  house  at  Green  street,  in 
order  to  confer  together,  what  would  be  the  most  eligible  way 
to  re-organize  the  Yearly  Meeting.  At  what  time  and  place, 
was  the  meeting  above  referred  to,  held?  It  was  held  in  the 
meetinghouse  in  Arch  street;  the  time,  I  suppose,  was  in  the 
Fourth-month  of  last  year;  it  commenced  the  third  Second- 
day  in  that  month.  How  many  days  was  that  meeting  held 
after  the  disagreement  of  the  representatives  about  a  clerk? 
The  meeting  closed  on  Seventh-day  morning  of  the  same  week 
in  which  it  comnrienced.  Was  that  the  usual  time  of  holding 
the  meeting?  It  is  seldom  held  later,  and  it  often  closed  soon- 
er. How  long  has  the  Yearly  Meeting  been  held  at  the  meet- 
ing house  in  Arch  street?  I  don't  doubt  that  it  has  been  held 
there  twenty  years  or  more.  Has  the  Yearly  Meeting  been 
held  there  since  you  considered  it  dissolved?  If  so,  when?  I 
cannot  answer  that  question,  for  this  reasi^i,  I  don't  know  it  to 
be  the  fact.  You  have  spoken  of  two  distinct  meetings  in 
Philadelphia;  where  are  those  two  held?  I  have  told  you- 
where  one  of  them  has  been  held:  at  the  close  of  the  one  that 
I  have  spoken  of,  my  wife  was  indisposed,  and  as  I  had  a  little 
leisure,  I  went  to  the  house  of  a  family  acquaintance,  where  I 
thought  some  near  relations  were,  if  they  came  into  town; 
I  supposed  they  had  come  up  in  order  to  attend  the  meeting  of 
ministers  and  elders  held  on  that  day.  The  friend  told  me  they 
were  in  town.  They  are,  he  said,  in  my  house.  I  read  publica- 
tions issued  from  a  Yearly  Meeting  held  in  the  house  on  Arch  st. 
Who  was  the  Friend  you  speak  of,  that  first  proposed  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  clerk  at  the  meeting  house  in  Mount  Pleasant, 
on  the  8th  Instant?  I  have  no  knowledge  of  him.  What  part 
of  the  meeting  house  were  you  in,  when  David  Hilles  first  took 
possession  of  the  table?  I  have  not  stated  that  David  Hilles 
took  possession  of  the  table;  I  don't  know  that  to  be  a  fact. 
How  near  were  you  to  the  person  who  first  proposed  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  clerk?  I  was  some  distance  oif,  but  not  so  far 
but  that  I  heard  him  intelligibly;  I  cannot  state  the  distance. 
Did  you  see  him?  I  did  not.  Which  particular  meeting  of 
Friends  is  it,  you  refer  to,  that  recognised  the  re-organized 
society  of  Friends  in  Philadelphia?  was  it  the  Hicksites  or  sepa- 


at  Steub«niciUe,  Ohio. 


103 


ratiBts;  or,  was  it  the  orthodox  of  Baltimore  or  Ohio?  I  know 
of  no  orthodox  Yearly  Meeting  held  in  Baltimore,  neither  do  I 
know  of  any  such  meeting  held  at  Mount  Pleasant.  Who  was 
the  clerk  of  the  meeting  in  Ohio,  that  recognised  the  re-organiz- 
ed Yearly  Meeting  in  Philadelphia?  David  Hilles.  Have  you 
been  at  any  time  disowned  by  the  meeting  of  Friends?  If  so, 
when  and  where?  I  never  have.  Have  you  been  at  any  time 
disowned  by  any  society  or  meeting  calling  themselves  Friends? 
I  never  have.  Have  you  ever  been  notified  of  your  disown- 
ment,  by.  any  religious  meeting  of  which  you  were  a  member? 
If  so,  by  whom,  and  when  was  it?  I  never  have.  Did  you  re- 
ceive notice  in  behalf  of  the  trustees  of  the  society  of  Friends, 
constituting  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  not  to  enter  the  meet- 
ing house  in  Mount  Pleasant?  And  if  so,  when,  and  was  that 
notice  in  writing,  printed,  or  verbal?  I  did  not  receive  any 
notice  whatever.  Who  was  it  that  called  out,  the  gallery  is 
falling?  I  do  not  know.  The  witness  wishes  to  explain  him- 
self further  as  to  the  answer  to  the  last  question  but  one.  The 
witness  states,  as  I  walked  toward  the  yard  gate  on  the  8th  in- 
stant, I  was  met  by  two  men,  one  of  whom  said  he  wished  to 
read  a  paper — I  did  not  stop;  the  other  said  it  would  not  de- 
tain me  long:  neither  of  them  told  me  any  part  of  the  contents 
of  itj  they  followed  me  into  the  yard  of  the  meeting  house,  and 
said,  we  do  not  acknowledge  thee;  this  is  all  they  said  or  did; 
they  did  not  notify  me  in  any  way  not  to  enter  their  meeting 
house.  Will  you  state  who  these  persons  were,  and  whether 
they  belonged  to  the  Friends'  meeting?  One  of  them  I  suppos- 
ed was  Abel  Tovvnsend,  the  other  I  know  nothing  of.  I  had 
not  any  doubt,  at  the  time,  but  they  were  members.  I  don't 
know  the  fact.    And  further  this  deponent  saith  not. 

Richard  Barnard. 
Affirmed  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  1 7th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1828. 

William  Smith,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 
Deposition  of  Amos  Peaslee. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  this  17th  day  of  September, 
1828.  between  the  hours  of  8  o'clock  A.  M.  and  7  o'clock  P. 
M.  of  said  day,  at  the  house  of  Israel  French,  in  Mount  Plea- 
sant, (to  which  place  the  taking  of  this  deposition  was  adjourn- 
ed, by  consent  of  the  attorneys,)  Amos  Peaslee,  who  being  first 
duly  affirmed,  deposeth  and  saith:  I  reside  in  the  state  of  New 
Jersey,  in  Gloucester  county,  in  the  town  of  Berkley,  Upper 
Greenwich  township.  I  belong  to  Salem  Quarterly  Meeting, 
Woodbury  Monthly  Meeting,  and  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, for  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  and  the 
Eastern  Shore  of  Maryland.  I  am  travelling  in  the  character 
©fan  approved  minister,  in  unity  with  the  society  of  Fritnds. 


104 


Trial  of  Friends 


I  have  certificates  in  the  regular  order  of  the  society,  from 
the  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meetings  aforesaid: — the  certifi- 
cates inside,  attached  to  this  deposition,  and  marked  with  the 
letter  N.  I  am  well  acquainted  with  Seth  Matlack,  who  is 
clerk  of  Woodbury  Monthly  Meeting,  and  he  was  directed  by 
the  Monthly  Meeting  to  sign  said  certificate.  I  am  also  ac- 
quainted with  Anna  Peaslee. 

Questio7i  by  defendants^  counsel. — Are  you  acquainted  with  her 
hand-writing?  If  so,  is  her  name  signed  to  the  certificate  re- 
ferred to,  in  her  hand-writing?  I  am  acquainted  .with  her 
hand-writing,  and  it  appears  to  be  her  hand-writing  clearly; 
beyond  doubting  it  is.  Is  she  the  women's  clerk  of  Woodbu- 
ry Monthly  Meeting?  She  is.  When  was  she  appointed  clerk 
of  that  meeting?  In  the  First  or  Second-month  of  1828. 
When  was  Seth  Matlack  appointed  clerk  of  Woodbury  Month- 
ly Meeting?  In  the  First  or  Second-month  of  1828.  How 
long  has  Woodbury  Monthly  Meeting  been  established?  A 
number  of  years.  I  have  been  acquainted  with  it  near  three 
years;  I  have  heard  it  said  that  it  was  established  many  years 
before  that.  Have  there  been  any  dissentions  in  that  Month- 
ly Meeting,  and  have  any  members  withdrawn  from  it?  If  so, 
state  how  many,  and  who  they  were?  There  have  been  some 
dissentions  in  that  Monthly  Meeting.  In  the  First  or  Second- 
month  in  1828,  Josiah  Tatum,  Joseph  Whitall,  and  a  few 
others,  from  six,  to  twelve,  or  fourteen,  in  a  disorderly  manner 
left  the  meeting,  contrary  to  the  general  voice  of  the  meeting. 
Josiah  Tatum  had  served  the  meeting  as  clerk,  but  at  that 
time  would  not  serve  the  meeting  according  to  the  mind  of  the 
meetin.g,  and  carried  away  the  records,  contrary  to  the  mind 
of  the  meeting.  What  number  of  adult  members  remained  in 
the  meeting  when  those  persons  withdrew?  I  cannot  be  cer- 
tain, but  I  think  from  seventy  to  ninety.  Did  they  proceed,  at 
that  time,  to  appoint  the  persons  whose  names  are  signed  to 
the  certificates  above  referred  to,  as  clerks  of  that  meeting? 
They  did.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Isaac  Townsend  and  Ra- 
chel C.  Wainwright,  whose  names  are  signed  to  this  certifi- 
cate, of  the  Salem  Quarterly  Meeting  of  Friends,  above  re- 
ferred to?  Yes,  I  am  acquainted  with  them  both.  Are  you 
acquainted  with  their  hand-writing?  Not  perfectly.  Were 
you  present  at  the  Salem  Quarterly  Meeting,  when  the  certi- 
ficate above  referred  to,  was  directed  to  be  granted  to  you? 
I  was.  Did  you  at  that  time,  or  shortly  after,  receive  the  cer- 
tificates above  referred  to,  in  pursuance  of  such  directions?  I 
think  it  was  the  next  day.  Were  Isaac  Townsend  and  Rachel 
C.  Wainwright  the  clerks  of  that  Quarterly  Meeting  at  that 
time?  They  were.  When  were  Isaac  Townsend  and  Rachel 
C.  Wainwright  appointed  clerks  of  that  Quarterly  Meeting? 
Isaac  Townsend  was  appointed  in  the  Eleventh-month,  1827. 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


105 


Was  the  other  appointed  at  the  same  time?  Yes.  Who  had 
before  been  men's  clerk  of  that  Quarterly  Meeting,  and  why 
was  he  not  still  continued  clerk?  Samuel  Webster:  but  he  re- 
fused to  write  according  to  the  mind  of  the  meeting,  and, 
with  a  few  others,  left  the  meeting  abruptly.  Are  Wood- 
bury Monthly  Meeting  and  Salem  Quarterly  Meeting  now 
held  at  the  same  times  and  places  at  which  they  were  former- 
ly held,  before  the  persons  above  spoken  of  withdrew  from 
them?  Yes,  they  are. 
And  further  this  deponent  saith  not. 

Amos  Peaslee. 
Affirmed  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  17th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1828. 

Wm.  Smith,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 
.  [N.] 

Our  esteemed  friend,  Amos  Peaslee,  in  a  weighty  manner, 
opened  in  this  meeting  a  concern  that  had  accompanied  his 
mind  for  sorhe  time,  to  pay  a  religious  visit  to  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ings of  Friends  in  Ohio  and  Indiana,  and  most  or  all  of  the 
meetings  constituting  said  meetings;  and  to  appoint  some 
meetings  amongst  those  not  of  our  religious  society,  and  also 
to  attend  meetings  going  and  returning:  and  after  a  time  of 
weighty  deliberation,  this  meeting  fully  unites  therewith,  and 
he  is  left  at  liberty  to  pursue  his  prospect,  as  truth  may  open 
the  way,  he  being  a  minister  in  good  unity  amongst  Friends. 

Signed  by  direction  of  Woodbury  Monthly  Meeting  of 
Friends,  in  the  state  of  New- Jersey,  held  Fourth-month  28, 
1828,  by  Seth  Matlack,  Clerk. 

Anna  Peaslee,  Clerk. 

[N.] 

At  Salenx  Quarterly  Meeting  of  Friends,  held  at  W^oodbury, 
the  15th  of  the  Fifth-month,  1828,  Amos  Peaslee,  a  minister 
in  good  esteem  with  us,  opened  in  this  meeting  his  prospect 
of  paying  a  religious  visit  to  Friends  within  the  limits  of  Ohio 
and  Indiana  Yearly  Meetings,  &c.  as  expressed  in  the  within 
certificate:  under  a  deep  and  solid  consideration  thereof,  much 
unity  and  sympathy  with  him  therein  was  expressed,  and  he 
left  at  liberty  to  pursue  his  prospect,  as  truth  may  open  the  way, 
desiring  for  him  the  blessing  of  preservation,  and  that  he  may 
be  favoured  to  return  with  the  answer  of  peace. 
Signed  on  behalf  thereof,  by 

Isaac  Townsend,  Clerk  of  the  Men's  Meeting. 

Rachel  C.  Wainwright,  Clerk  of  the  Women's  Meeting. 

Deposition  of  Joshua  Barnes. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  on  this  17th  day  of  Septem- 
ber, 1828,  between  the  hours  of  8  o'clock  A.  M.  and  7  P.  M. 


106 


Trial  of  Fn$nd) 


of  said  day,  at  the  house  of  Israel  French,  in  Mount  Pleasant, 
(to  which  place  the  taking  of  these  depositions  was  adjourned, 
by  consentof  the  attorneys,)  Joshua  Barnes,  who  beingfirst  duly 
affirmed,  deposeth  and  saith,  my  residence  is  in  the  state  of 
New  Jersey,  Salem  county,  Pilesgrove  township.  I  was  at 
Salem  Quarterly  Meeting  when  Amos  Peaslee  opened  a  con- 
cern, as  expressed  in  a  minute  from  the  Monthly  Meeting  of 
Woodbury,  to  pay  a  religious  visit  to  Ohio  and  Indiana  Year- 
ly Meetings,  and  meetings  in  the  compass  thereof,  and  some 
meetings  in  his  way  going  and  returning.  And  the  Quarter- 
ly Meeting  united  with  him,  and  left  him  at  liberty  to  perform 
the  same,  and  directed  the  clerk  to  give  him  a  certificate.  I 
have  seen  a  certificate  marked  N,  attached  to  the  deposition  of 
Amos  Peaslee.  I  have  seen  Seth  Matlack  write  his  name.  I 
know  that  he  was  clerk  of  that  Monthly  Meeting,  at  the  time 
the  above  named  certificate  was  obtained,  and  I  believe  the 
name  of  Seth  Matlack  is  in  his  hand-writing. 
And  further  this  deponent  saith  not. 

Joshua  Barnes. 
Affirmed  and  subscriljed  before  me,  this  17th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1828. 

William  Smith,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 

William  Magur  affirmed  on  the  part  of  the  defendants. — Were 
you  at  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  on  Second-day,  the  8th  of  Sep- 
tember? J  attended  at  the  Yearly  Meeting  house,  at  half  past 
8  o'clock.  I  had  my  lodgings  in  town;  and  a  report  came  to 
me  that  the  meeting  house  was  open,  and  that  persons  were 
going  in.  I,  with  others,  went  over  to  the  meeting  house,  and 
found  several  in  the  yards,  and  about  the  doors;  but  the  doors 
were  all  shut.  I  went  round  to  the  women's  end,  and  saw 
persons  nailing  up  advertisements.  In  a  little  time,  word 
came  that  the  doors  were  open,  and  that  the  people  were 
going  in.  I  went  back  again,  and  found  the  front  door  of  the 
men's  side  half  way  open.  I  think,  perhaps,  there  were  six 
men  standing  on  each  end  of  the  steps.  .  Friends  came,  and 
passed  promiscuously  into  the  house. 

In  a  little  while,  some  collected  about,  and  one  from  the 
meeting  to  which  I  belong.  They  went  and  passed  in.  I 
proposed  to  another  that  he  should  go  in,  but  he  was  stopped; 
upon  what  principles,  I  cannot  tell.  A  short  time  after,  a  per- 
son came  out  upon  the  steps,  and  in  an  audible  voice,  said 
that  all  having  a  right  to  a  seat  might  go  in.  I  walked  in, 
and  as  soon  as  I  was  in,  I  was  interrogated  whether  I  was  a 
member,  and  to  what  meeting  I  belonged.  I  did  not  make 
any  answer,  but  walked  on  and  took  my  seat. 

I  discovered  then,  that  the  galleries  and  seats  under  the 
galleries,  and  perhaps  one  or  tAvo  of  the  facing  seats,  were 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


101 


filled  with  men  sitting  upon  them.  A  few  minutes  after  I  tooli 
my  seat,  those  at  the  door  shut  the  door  and  barred  it:  the 
body  of  the  house  was,  generally  speaking,  vacant.  There 
may  have  been  a  few  scattering  individuals.  The  south  door 
was  all  that  I  saw  open.  When  the  door  was  shut,  I  felt 
somewhat  disagreeable  at  it,  in  a  place  where  I  had  been 
accustomed  to  attend;  I  went  to  the  door  and  remonstrated. 
I  told  them,  as  the  door  had  been  opened,  it  would  be  better 
to  let  it  stay  open.  Whether  it  was  in  tonsequence  of  what 
I  said,  I  do  not  presume  to  say,  but  one  person  present  gave 
me  an  invitation,  two  or  three  limes,  something  in  this  lan- 
guage: "may  be,  thee  had  better  walk  out."  I  informed  him 
that  I  did  not  intend  to  go  out;  for  I  considered  I  had  as  good 
a  right  in  the  house  as  he  had. 

I  then  withdrew,  and  took  my  seat  again;  and  in  a  few 
minutes  after,  there  was  a  scuffle  took  place  at  the  door.  It 
appears  there  were  several  came  up,  and  those  that  I  sup- 
posed were  guards,  opposed  them,  and  a  scuffle  ensued;  and 
I  heard  a  man  halloo,  and  I  knew  his  voice,  though  I  did  not 
see  him.  And  I  t,hink  there  were  a  few  individuals  inside, 
who  went  to  assist  those  at  the  door,  to  push  back,  but  the 
crowd  without,  appeared  to  be  too  strong  for  those  within, 
and  they  pressed  in;  and  a  considerable  number  of  individuals 
came  into  the  house.  After  they  came  in,  there  were  one  or 
more  persons  who  went  to  the  end  doors;  and  although  I  am 
not  certain,  yet  it  is  my  impression,  that  they  opened  both. 
After  the  doors  were  opened,  some  individual  in,  or  near  the 
gallery,  got  up,  and  proposed  that  the  guards  had  better  go 
to  the  doors;  and  it  appears  that  several  went.  In  a  short 
time  after,  I  heard  a  conversation  between  the  guards  and 
those  without;  and  there  soon  came  in  a  crowd,  who  forced 
their  way  in  by  pushing  the  guards  back.  It  appeared  to  me 
that  the  guards  were  pushing  and  endeavouring  to  keep  them 
out,  but  by  the  pressure  of  the  others,  were  shoved  into  the 
house;  and  it  continued  in  this  way,  off  and  on,  till  the  house 
was  filled  as  full  as  it  could  reasonably  be. 

After  the  house  was  pretty  well  filled,  a  Friend  appeared  in 
supplication;  and  after  that  was  over,  there  was  a  short  pause. 
I  think  a  Friend  then  got  up,  and  observed,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  conduct  of  the  old  clerks,  he  would  propose  for 
the  consideration  of  the  meeting,  that  a  clerk  be  appointed 
for  the  day,  for  opening  the  meeting.  There  were  a  great 
many  voices  united  with  the  proposition.  There  was  a  pro- 
position then  made  for  David  Hilles  to  be  clerk;  and  there 
was  a  large  majority  of  voices  expressing  approbation;  as 
much  so  as  I  ever  heard  in  a  Yearly  Meeting,  at  any  period 
whenever  I  attended.  There  were,  as  well  as  I  recollect, 
two  or  three  voices  objecting  to  his  appointment  as  clerk. 


lOS 


Trial  of  Friends 


The  old  clerk  proceeded  to  open  the  meeting — whether  it  was 
before  David  ililies  was  proposed,  or  not,  my  recollection 
will  not  serve.  They  proceeded  in  a  greater  hurry  than  usual, 
in  opening  the  meeting,  and  proceeding-  to  business:  David 
Hilles  was  called  to  go  to  the  table — several  voices  requested 
him  to  go  forward.  Where  he  was,  I  knew  not;  the  first  I  saw 
of  him  was  near  the  stove,  in  the  passage  leading  to  the  clerks* 
table.  When  he  came  there,  it  appeared  there  was  an  oppo- 
sition to  his  going  up  to  take  his  seat.  About  that  time,  the 
individuals  sitting  on  the  steps,  rose  on  their  feet;  and' a  great 
many  persons  throughout  the  meeting  house  began  to  get  on 
their  feet,  and  some  on  the  benches.  This  hindered  me  from 
seeing  how  he  got  to  the  table. 

A  number  in  the  gallery  rose  up,  and  came  towards  the 
passage.  It  appeared  that  there  was  a  contest  between  the 
two  parties.  After  David  Hilles  got  to  the  clerk's  seat,  I  saw 
him.  I  think  he  made  a  minute,  in  the  usual  way,  and  opened 
the  meeting. 

About  this  time  a  proposition  was  made  for  an  adjournment, 
by  those  who  have  been  designated  the  orthodox.  And  it  was 
so  far  united  with,  that  the  representatives,  pretty  generally, 
agreed  to  adjourn  till  10  o'clock  the  next  morningj  and  a  mi- 
nute was  made  accordingly,  and  they  withdrew  and  left  the 
house. 

Are  you  a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends?  Yes.  To  what 
Quarter  do  you  belong.^  Redstone.  In  what  capacity  were 
you  attending  that  meeting.''  In  common  with  other  members 
of  the  society.  I  was  a  representative  from  the  Redstone 
Quarter,  to  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting..  Was  it  according  to 
tne  usual  practice  of  Friends,  to  have  such  guards  at  the  doors? 
I  do  not  recollect  that  I  have  ever  seen  guards  placed  in  that 
way. 

Have  you  ever  known  persons  prevented  by  violence  from 
entering  such  meetings?  I  never  did.  Was  not  the  weather 
very  inclement?  It  was.  Was  it  not  very  uncomfortable  out 
of  the  house?  It  was.  How  are  your  Monthly  Meetings  com- 
posed? They  are  composed  of  all  such  as  are  considered 
members  of  the  society.  When  these  members  are  gathered 
for  discipline,  is  there  any  distinction  among  them,  as  mem- 
bers? I  do  not  know  of  any.  The  members  are  all  considered 
to  have  equal  rights,  in  my  opinion. 

How  are  questions  determined?  When  a  question  is  pro- 
posed, as  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  if  it  is  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  require  investigation,  members  are  at  liberty  to 
speak;  and  whichever  way  it  happens  to  settle  with  the  most 
general  satisfaction,  it  is  received,  and  a  minute  entered. 
When  the  minute  is  read,  if  it  be  not  according  to  the  views 
of  the  members,  they  suggest  alterations.    After  it  is  again 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


109 


discussed,  entered  by  the  clerk,  read  and  adopted,  then  it  is 
the  order  of  the  meeting. 

Is  there  any  difference  between  a  Quarterly  and  Monthly- 
Meeting  in  this  respect?  1  do  not  know  any.  Of  whom  is  your 
Quarterly  Meeting  composed?  It  is  composed  of  two  or  more 
Monthly  Meetings.  A  Quarterly  Meeting  for  discipline  is 
composed  of  several  Monthly  Meetings,  who  appoint  repre- 
sentatives to  attend  at  the  Quarterly  Meeting.  Uo  you  mean, 
that  a  Quarterly  Meeting  is  composed  wholly  of  representa- 
tives? My  idea  is,  tliat  they  have  the  care  of  taking  up  the 
business  of  the  Monthly  Meeting,  and  of  bringing  back  any 
thing  that  may  be  necessary.  That  is,  they  are  the  organs 
of  the  Monthly  Meeting;  but  when  assembled  they  are  in  com- 
mon with  tlie  other  members. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  is  composed  of  a  number  of  Quarters, 
in  a  similar  manner,  as  the  Quarters  are  composed  of  Monthly 
Meetings.  My  understanding  is,  that  it  is  a  general  meeting 
of  the  society.  As  a  representative  from  Redstone  Quar- 
ter, did  you  suppose  you  had  any  more  power,  or  right,  in  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  than  others?  I  did  not.  In  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ings, who  has  the  power.to  decide  questions  that  come  before 
them;  or  who  has  a  right  to  bring  up,  or  make  a  proposition? 
My  understanding  is,  that  any  regular  member  in  the  society 
has  a  right  to  offer  a  proposition  to  the  meeting.  Has  the 
clerk  any  power  to  determine  the  question?  The  meeting  has 
the  power.  The  clerk  is  no  more  than  a  servant  of  the  meet- 
ing- 

You  have  said,  that  previous  to  opening  the  meeting,  a  pro- 
position was  made  to  appoint  a  new  clerk,  as  the  old  one  had 
disqualified  himself?  Yes.  Is  it  in  the  order  of  society,  for 
the  clerk  to  proceed,  while  a  question  is  before  the  meeting? 
When  a  proposition  is  before  the  meeting,  it  is  usually  dis- 
posed of  in  some  way. 

Court  adjourned  till  9  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Saturday  morning,  9  o'clock. 

JViUiarn  Magar,  in  continuation  said,  when  a  proposition  is 
offered  to  the  meeting,  it  is  usually  discussed,  and  approved 
or  rejected  before  any  other  business  is  taken  up.  Is  it  order- 
ly or  disorderly,  for  a  clerk  to  interrupt  a  subject  of  that  kind, 
by  reading  or  making  a  noise?  I  should  consider  it  his  duty, 
as  faf  as  my  knowledge  has  extended,  as  to  the  usage  of  socie- 
ty, to  wait  till  the  subject  was  discussed,  and  a  pretty  general 
conclusion  come  to,  in  the  meeting.  Have  you  ever  known 
any  other  course  pursued,  previous  to  this  Yearly  Meeting? 
I  think  I  never  have.  Will  you  describe  the  effect  it  had  on 
the  meeting?  It  made  a  disturbance  and  inten-uption.  Iiy  the 
noise  and  voice  of  reading,  while  a  number  of  Friends  were 
14 


Trial  of  Friends 


uniting;  for  the  assistant  clerk  was  reading;,  and  he  has  a 
pretty  strong  voice  generally.  About  this  time,  there  was  an 
alarm  given,  which  produced  considerable  disorder  in  the 
meeting  for  a  few  minutes.  Do  you  know  who  gave  that 
alarm?  I  do  not.  Are  you  a  representative?  I  am  a  repre- 
sentative from  Redstone  Quarterly  Meeting.  There  was  but 
one  set  of  representatives  from  this  Quarter,  for  there  had  been 
no  division  there.  I  did  not  Ijring  forward  the  reports.  When 
the  representatives  were  called,  at  the  suggestion  of  Benjamin 
W.  Ladd,  was  your  name  called?  It  was.  Did  you  answer? 
I  did  not  answer.  My  reason  was,  that  a  question  had  been 
proposed  to  the  meeting,  and  as  the  clerk  was  proceeding  out 
of  the  usual  order  of  society,  I  did  not  think  proper  to  answer 
it.  The  proposition  to  appoint  a  new  clerk,  was  very  unani- 
mously concurred  in. 

Cross-examination. — You  say  you  are  a  member  of  Redstone 
Quarterly  Meeting,  and  of  Westland  Monthly  Meeting;  do  you 
know  of  any  conference  held  in  that  Monthly  Meeting?  There 
was,  I  think,  probably  in  the  Seventh-month,  a  conference  held; 
as  to  the  objects  I  cannot  say  much,  nor  as  to  the  conclusion. 
I  was  informed,  with  others,  that  it  was  requested  we  would 
meet  at  Redstone  meetinghouse,  to  confer  together  upon  the 
state  of  society,  and  with  regard  to  the  present  disturbance  in 
tiie  society.  It  is  my  opinion,  that  was  the  occasion.  The 
general  conclusion  of  the  meeting  was,  to  nominate  certain 
Friends  to  attend  the  conference  at  Plainfield.  Jehu  Lewis,  I 
believe,  was  one,  and  I  think  there  were  three  or  four.  I  be- 
lieve there  was  no  minute  made,  but  they  were  merely  nomi- 
nated. I  can't  recollect,  whether  David  Hilles  was  one  or  not. 
There  was  no  object  explained,  nor  instruction  given.  I  have 
understood  it  was  a  general  conference,  from  the  different 
Quarters.  The  object  I  have  stated  to  be,  to  consult  upon 
measures  for  maintaining  our  rights  and  privileges. 

Was  not  the  object  of  that  conference  to  bring  about  a  con- 
cert of  action  at  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  think  not.  You  met, 
and  united  in  sending  delegates  to  the  general  conference;  and 
yet  had  no  object  in  view,  as  to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  Had  you 
any  object  in  view,  touching  the  proceedings  of  any  other 
meeting?  I  don't  know  that  I  had.  I  have  said,  that  in  the 
present  disturbed  state  of  society,  it  was  thought  adviseable  to 
have  an  interchange  of  sentiments;  but  for  one,  I  had  no  ob- 
ject. Do  you  know  of  any  determination  of  Redstone  Quar- 
ter, not  to  offer  their  report?  I  don't.  Who  had  the  report?  I  do 
not  know:  but  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  clerk  had  it,  being  a 
representative,  and  from  the  same  particular  meeting.  He 
was  not  from  the  meeting  to  which  I  belonged.  After  the 
Yearly  Meeting  was  opened.  David  Hilles  had  it.  Do  you 
know  of  any  one  of  your  colleagues  offering  it  to  the  meeting? 


al  SieubenviUe,  Ohio. 


I  do  not  know  who  brought  it.  Was  there  any  conference,  as 
to  whether  you  would  answer  to  the  old  meeting,  or  to  the  re- 
organized meeting?  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  heard  a  word 
said,  or  any  agreement  entered  into,  upon  the  subject.  I  cer- 
tainly heard  nothing  specific.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  heard 
any  thing  about  the  report  in  particular.  I  did  not  know  but 
one  that  went  over  to  the  conference,  and  that  was  Joseph 
John.  I  saw  him  start,  but  I  think  he  was  not  a  delegate.  I 
don't  know  that  David  Hilles  went  over  at  all.  Was  it  ac- 
cording to  discipline,  to  hold  such  a  conference?  I  do  not 
know  that  there  is  any  discipline  touching  the  subject.  Was 
it  not  unusual.^  I  can't  say  it  was  unusual;  though  I  never 
knew  an  instance.  How  came  you  to  answer  David  Hilles, 
and  not  Jonathan  Taylor?  I  have  said,  that  I  thought  it  out 
of  order;  and  I  considered  that  David  Hilles  was  appointed  by 
the  meeting.  I  thought  it  in  order  to  appoint  David  Hilles., 
Does  not  the  discipline  require,  that  the  representatives  re- 
port the  name,  at  the  second  sittiny;  of  the  meeting?  My  un- 
derstanding is,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  representatives  to  re- 
port a  clerk  at  the  second  sitting — that  is  the  common  usage, 
if  there  is  no  disability  of  the  clerk.  But  the  representatives 
could  not  be  known,  till  there  was  a  person  appointed  clerk 
for  the  day;  and  when  their  names  were  called  over,  it  would 
be  their  duty  to  name  a  clerk  to  be  appointed  at  the  next  sit- 
ting. 

Until  this  Yearly  Meeting,  did  you  ever  know  any  person  act 
for  the  meeting,  but  the  regular  clerk,  or  the  assistant  clerk? 
No.  Not  where  they  were  present,  and  nothing  to  disqualify 
them?  There  is  that  in  our  discipline,  which  shows,  that  those 
guilty  of  misconduct,  ought  not  to  attend  the  meeting.  And 
there  might  not  be  a  meeting  intervening,  in  which  they  could 
be  dealt  with;  and  I  know  no  better  way,  if  the  indi\idual 
comes  forward,  than  to  have  the  objections  made  in  the  Yearly 
Meeting.  My  understanding  was,  that  in  consequence  of  cer- 
tain misconduct,  he  had  disqualified  himself.  There  was  a 
proposition  for  the  appointment  of  a  tiew  one,  in  consequence 
of  this  misconduct;  and  the  proposition  being  united  in,  was 
the  decision  of  the  meeting  upon  that  misconduct. 

Did  you  ever  know  a  Yearly,  Quarterly,  or  Monthly  Meet- 
ing to  act  upon  a  proposition,  in  the  way  that  the  Yearly 
Meeting  did,  in  relation  to  a  clerk?  I  do  not  know  any  parti- 
cular circumstance.  I  have  known  a  number  of  instances,  in 
our  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meetings,  but  I  cannot  designate 
any  in  particular.  I  consider  it  the  usage  of  society.  How 
can  it  be  the  usage,  if  you  know  of  no  particular  instance? 
There  are  propositions  submitted  to  our  meetings  in  a  similar 
way,  sometimes  in  the  Monthly,  sometimes  in  the  Quarterly 
Meeting;  the  clerk  being  absent.    I  never  have  been  present, 


Trial  of  Friends 


when  the  cleik.  and  assistant  clerk,  were  present,  that  such  a 
proposition  was  made.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  objection  to 
Amos  E.  Kimberly's  serving  the  nieeting?  I  do  not  know  that  I 
have.  I  have  seen  instances,  where  the  clerk  was  absent,  and  the 
assistant  clerk  present;  and  it  is  customary,  in  such  cases,  for 
some  individual  to  propose,  that  the  assistant  clerk  open  the 
meeting,  and  proceed  in  room  of  the  clerk,  or  otherwise  some 
Friend  be  appointed  in  his  place.  If  you  have  seen  an  in- 
stance of  that  kind,  state  when  and  where?  I  have  seen  it  in 
our  meetings,  but  I  can't  slate  when  and  where.  I  cannot  al- 
lude to  any  particular  case.  I  have  known  such  cases  to  occur, 
agreeably  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  but  I  cannot  cite  any 
particular  case.  Do  you  know  what  the  objections  were, 
against  Jonathan  Taylor's  being  clerk?  One  reason  I  have 
heard  offered  was,  his  ordering  Amos  Peaslee  to  sit  down 
when  he  was  engaged  in  the  ministry.  It  is  an  offence  to  of- 
fer a  contempt  to  a  minister  in  public.  I  know  not  what  was 
submitted  to  the  meeting;  I  heard  no  charges,  I  only  heard 
objections  made  to  him. 

Did  you  not  know  and  understand,  before  the  interruption 
of  Amos  Peaslee,  that  a  new  clerk  was  to  be  made?  No,  I  did 
not.  Did  you  not  know  before  the  meeting  convened,  that  it 
was  proposed  to  have  a  new  clerk?  It  was  talked  about,  but  I 
live  at  a  distance,  and  was  not  so  well  informed.  There  were 
other  charges  agaitist  the  old  clerk.  One  objection  was,  that 
he  had  gone  off  with  the  separatists,  at  New  York.  I  heard 
David  Hilles  talked  of  as  a  suitable  person,  as  coming  from 
an  undivided  Quarter,  but  there  never  was  any  agreement  en- 
tered into  in  my  presence.  As  the  other  Quarters  were  divided, 
we  thought  it  would  be  more  proper,  that  a  clerk  should  be 
appointed  from  a  Quarter  that  was  not  divided,  should  it  be 
necessary.  What  was  talked  about  the  prospect  of  having  to 
appoint  a  new  clerk?  There  was  no  agreement  to  appoint  one, 
but  it  was  thought  if  it  should  be  necessary,  he  would  be  a  pro- 
per person. 

Did  you  know  of  any  understanding,  to  appoint  a  clerk,  in 
consequence  of  Jonathan'Taylor's  disqualification?  No,  I  know 
of  no  understanding.  You  say,  that  you  heard  a  conversation, 
that  Jonathan  Taylor  had  gone  off  with  the  separatists  at  New 
York,  and  that  he  had  disturbed  Amos  Peaslee,  therefore  Da- 
vid Hilles  was  thought  a  suitable  person  for  clerk,  if  necessary? 
No,  I  never  heard  any  thing  mentioned,  as  being  that  which 
would  make  it  necessary  to  appoint  a  clerk.  I  may  have  heard 
something  said  at  the  school  house,  on  Seventh-day  afternoon, 
but  I  cannot  explain  the  object.  But  I  suppose  the  object  was, 
that  in  consequence  of  the  present  movements,  and  what  had 
been  circulating,  with  regard  to  the  meas-ures  that  would  be 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


113 


adopted  to  prevent  Friends  from  getting  into  the  house,  a 
number  of  Friends  assembled  to  qonsult  what  was  best  to  be 
done.  The  conclusion  was,  according  to  my  understanding, 
to  go  to  the  meeting  as  usual,  and  if  not  prevented,  to  go  in. 
But  if  kept  out,  when  met  in  a  collective  capacity,  then  to  de- 
termine what  was  to  be  done. 

I  do  not  know  whether  Isaac  James  was  there,  or  David  Hil- 
les;  I  cannot  say  positively.  I  recollect  his  being  mentioned; 
it  was  said,  that  if  it  should  be  necessary  to  have  a  new  clerk, 
he  would  be  a  suitalile  person.  Do  you  not  know,  that  he  had 
been  consulted  with,  as  to  his  acceptance  ?  I  do  not  recollect 
of  hearing  any  thing  about  his  accepting.  It  was  expected,  that 
measures  would  be  taken,  to  prevent  Friends  from  getting  into 
the  house,  and  they  assembled  to  consider  the  subject,  and 
they  concluded  to  assemble  as  usual,  and  as  if  nothing  was  the 
matter;  and  if,  when  assembled,  they  were  prevented  from  en- 
tering the  house,  to  use  no  violence.  They  were  to  determine 
on  measures  when  thus  assembled.  I  heard  nothing  about  re- 
organizing the  meeting,  in  case  the  orthodox  should  prohibit 
our  entering,  nor  of  any  preconcerted  plan. 

Were  not  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  and  the  meeting  of 
ministers  and  elders,  bodies  belonging  to  the  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting?  Yes,  they  were  members  of  the  meeting.  Did  they 
not  belong  as  bodies  to  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting?  I  do  not 
know,  I  never  sat  in  their  meetings.  There  are  rules  in  the 
discipline  in  relation  to  such  bodies.  Were  not  both  these  bo- 
dies united  with  the  orthodox  party?  I  cannot  answer,  not 
being  acquainted  in  the  different  Quarterly  Meetings.  Was 
there  any  Meeting  for  Sufferings  belonging'to  there-organized 
meeting  of  Ohio?  There  was  not  under  that  name;  but  there 
is  that  which  amounts  to  about  the  same  thing.  Was  there 
assembled  with  the  re-organized  meeting,  a  Meeting  for  Suffer- 
ings? There  was  not,  till  they  were  appointed  by  the  meeting. 
Was  there  any  report  from  a  body  of  that  kind,  to  the  re- 
organized meeting?  Not  of  the  orthodox  party.  Was  there  of 
the  heterodox  or  Hicksites?  I  cannot  answer  fully,  because  I  left 
before  the  meeting  was  over.  I  was  there  till  some  time  on 
Sixth-day.  There  was  no  report  till  I  left  on  Sixth-day  after- 
noon. There  was  a  standing  committee,  governed  by  the  same 
discipline  as  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings.  Were  there  any  re- 
ports or  proceedings  of  the  last  year,  read  by  this  committee, 
in  relation  to  the  last  year?  I  heard  nothing  concerning  it. 
Is  not  that  a  part  of  the  duty  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  to  read 
the  proceedings  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  the  previous 
year?  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  to  receive  the  re- 
port of  that  committee.  Did  you  receive  such  a  report?  I 
recollect  none.  There  was  none.  There  was  in  your  re- 
organized meeting,  no  report  of  any  thing  which  took  place 


114 


Trial  of  Friends 


before  you  were  re-organized?  When  the  old  clerk  went  off, 
he  took  the  books  and  papers  with  him.  1  do  not  recollect 
any  report  in  relation  to  th'e  last  year. 

Was  it  not  an  understanding  of  your  party,  that  they  would 
re-organize  the  Yearly  Meeting?  Not  that  I  know  of.  Was  a 
demand  made  of  the  old  clerk  for  the  papers?  1  do  not  know. 
Did  you  hear  any  objections  to  Amos  E.  Kimberly  as  assistant 
clerk?  I  don't  know  that  I  did,  he  went  off  with  the  orthodox 
party.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  the  assistant  clerk  was  ap- 
pointed before  Amos  E.  Kimberly  went  off  or  not.  Was  the 
minute  of  the  appointment  read  by  Hilles?  I  can't  answer.  I 
want  you  to  say  whether  Jehu  Lewis'  name  was  not  mentioned 
before  the  orthodox  adjourned?  I  cannot  say.  You  have  said 
it  was  a  conclusion,  for  Friends  to  go  to  the  meeting  as  usual; 
did  they  include  any  other  than  the  Hicksites,  or  did  they  not 
include  those  disowned?  Nothing  was  said  about  them.  Was 
not  Borden  Stanton  at  your  Yearly  Meeting?  There  was  a 
person  there,  whom  they  called  Borden  Stanton.  Did  he  take 
part  in  the  proceedings?  He  did.  Was  Amos  Peaslee  at  the 
school  house,  and  at  the  Yearly  Meeting?  Yes,  both.  Did  he 
speak?  He  spoke  in  the  preaching  way.  He  did  not  recom- 
mend any  thing  like  going  on  with  the  business,  in  defiance  of 
the  orthodox.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  conference,  in  rela- 
tion to  this  matter?  No. 

Do  you  know  Jacob  Griffith?  Yes,  in  Washington  county. 
There  were  a  few  persons  stopped  there  some  time  last  sum- 
mer, after  a  public  meeting  at  the  barn.  Was  there  a  letter 
read  there?  I  do  not  recollect.  Amos  Peaslee  was  there, 
Elias  Hicks  was  not  there. 

As  to  a  concurrence  with  the  appointment  of  David  Hilles; 
was  there  any  of  the  orthodox  who  concurred?  I  did  not  know 
of  any,  as  I  was  pretty  much  of  a  stranger.  I  recollect  one 
voice,  out  of  perhaps  three,  who  made  objections;  the  one 
said,  we  have  a  clerk.  Those  that  I  have  mentioned,  were  op- 
posing or  objecting  to  it.  Was  there  any  reply  to  these?  Not 
that  I  know  of.  They  were  made  when  others  were  uniting. 
Did  you  not  hear  it  staled,  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  repre- 
sentatives, to  nominate  a  clerk,  at  the  next  sitting?  I  think 
the  representatives  of  the  re-organized  meeting,  as  is  usual, 
agreed  to  nominate  David  Hilles.  The  Meeting  for  Sufferings 
was  laid  down,  and  a  standing  committee  appointed,  who  were 
to  be  governed  by  the  same  discipline.  They  took  one  for  the 
other.  You  know  of  no  order  from  the  Quai  lerly  or  Monthly 
Meetings,  or  any  thing  in  the  discipline,  which  would  authorize 
the  holding  these  conferences?  The  new  meeting  have  pub- 
lished no  new  discipline. 

Doctor  Carroll  affirmed, — Witness  was  at  the  last  Yearly 
Meeting  on  First-day,  is  a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends, 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


115 


belongs  to  Plainfield  Monthly  Meeting,  and  has  never  been  dis- 
owned, not  even  by  the  orthodox — and  says:  I  was  at  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting  on  First-day,  at  the  first  meeting.  I  was  there 
early,  and  the  galleries  were  then  filled.  At  a  suitable  time 
Elias  Hicks  rose,  and  after  speaking  some  time,  sat  down. 
Elisha  Bates  then  got  up,  and  commenced  an  abusive  discourse, 
and  after  him,  a  female  spoke  to  the  same  amount.  After  she 
concluded,  Elias  Hicks  rose  to  defend  himself,  but  the  ortho- 
dox broke  the  meeting,  and  they  would  not  allow  him  an  op- 
portunity to  be  heard  in  his  own  defence.  As  soon  as  they  shook 
hands,  some  of  the  boys  got  up,  and  with  others,  made  so 
much  noise,  that  he  could  not  proceed.  He  then  shook  hands, 
with  some  near  him,  aijd  said  they  might  as  well  part 
Friends. 

The  people  were  ordered  out,  but  they  would  not  go  out 
till  they  heard  his  defence;  but  when  he  went,  most  of  the 
people  went  away.  In  the  afternoon,  I  was  at  Short  Creek. 
The  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  were  not  there;  therefore 
there  was  no  confusion — no  opposition  made. 

On  Second-day  morning  I  went  to  the  meeting  house  some 
time  before  the  usual  hour  of  assembling;  and  when  I  got  to 
the  gate,  I  saw  some  of  the  orthodox  party,  with  notices  in 
their  hands,  and  there  were  some  sticking  up  along  the  walls. 
I  went  through,  and  found  door-keepers,  or  guards,  stationed 
at  each  door.  They  made  no  opposition.  I  went  to  the 
north-east  door  of  the  house,  and  v/ent  in,  and  found  the  gal- 
leries filled— the  steps  were  also  filled  leading  to  the  table.  I 
sat  down  upon  a  bench  near  the  stove,  and  sat  some  time. 
After  a  little  time  the  guards  gave  way,  and  many  were  shoved 
in.  Amos  Peaslee  came  in  in  that  way.  He  came  near  where 
I  was  standing.  I  recjuested  some  to  give  him  room,  but  they 
leaned  down,  and  told  him  not  to  come  there,  that  he  had  no 
business  there.  Before  this  a  prayer  had  been  made  by  Tho- 
mas Shillitoe.  It  seemed  very  different  from  what  is  usual. 
He  appeared  more  disposed  to  pray  for  success  than  salvation. 
The  house  was  soon  filled. 

Israel  French  rose,  and  made  a  few  observations.  He  said 
the  clerk  had  disqualified  himself  from  being  clerk,  and  pro- 
posed that  a  person  be  appointed  for  the  day,  which  was 
generally  united  with.  I  think  there  were  two  or  three  voices 
against  it.  About  the  time  that  French  commenced  speaking, 
Taylor  began  fixing  his  papers,  and  as  soon  as  he  was  pre- 
pared, commenced  reading.  The  proposition  being  agreed 
to,  David  Hilles  was  nominated,  and  the  nomination  was  united 
in,  very  generally,  as  much  so  as  I  ever  saw.  He  Avas  not 
near  the  table,  and  was  asked  to  come  forward;  some  said  he 
was  not  in  the  house.  After  some  time,  I  was  requested  to  go 
after  the  clerk,  and  bring  him  up,  as  the  passage  was  very 


116 


Trial  of  Friends 


much  filled.  I  went  down  the  passage  slowly,  till  1  saw 
David  Hilles  coming  from  the  corner  of  the  house.  When  he 
got  near  where  I  stood,  I  stepped  hehind  him,  and  told  some 
of  them  to  press  on,  and  we  took  him  up  slowly.  But  the 
young  men,  orthodox,  I  suppose,  opposed  us  violently.  One 
told  me  if  I  did  not  behave,  I  would  be  taken  out  of  the  house. 
We  moved  on,  notwithstanding  we  were  opposed  most  vehe- 
mently, till  we  got  up  near  the  gallery  steps,  where  we  calcu- 
lated to  make  a  place  for  him  to  write;  but  the  orthodox 
pressed  so  hard,  that  Hilles  was  pushed  out  of  his  course 
towards  the  women's  meeting:  he,  however,  got  back  to  the 
stove,  where  he  wrote  an  opening  minute. 

About  this  time  there  was  a  considerable  force  by  the  ortho- 
dox, such  as  pushing  and  jerking.  An  orthodox  young  man 
carried  me  off  a  piece,  and  another,  who  was  an  elder,  jerked 
me  down.  We  seemed  to  stand  our  ground,  although  they 
appeared  to  think  they  had  a  right,  and  wished  to  push  us  out 
of  it.  One  man  said,  I  think  he  was  on  our  side,  he  regarded 
no  man  for  his  incivility.  We  offered  to  pacify  him,  but  on 
the  other  side  they  were  going  on  in  the  same  way.  One  said 
he  was  the  owner  of  the  house.  They  were  on  both  sides  very 
much  alike,  only  they  were  principally  young  men  who  were 
engaged  on  our  side,  and  mostly  old  men  among  the  ortho- 
dox. 

After  they  had  pushed  me  about  considerably  I  was  very 
warm,  and  got  up  on  the  bench.  Joseph  Steer  and  Amos 
E.  Kimberly  were  holding  the  table.  I  told  them  it  did  not 
become  their  standing,  particularly  Amos  E.  Kimberly,  a 
minister.  About  this  time  a  young  man  undertook  to  get  up 
to  the  table,  and  when  he  got  near  the  ministers'  gallery  they 
threw  him  back  upon  the  people,  like  a  squirrel  from  a  tree. 
But  he  got  up  again,  and  succeeded  in  getting  to  the  gallery. 

Just  before  the  alarm,  a  couple  of  orthodox  began  to  talk 
to  me.  I  told  them  I  did  not  cacp  about  talking  to  small  shot, 
and  when  the  alarm  took  place  they  ran  and  left  me.  I  step- 
ped back,  and  discovered  that  the  gallery  was  not  coming 
down,  although  I  was  somewhat  agitated. 

They  ran  to  the  door,  and  some  of  them,  I  think  Jonathan 
Taylor,  unbarred  it,  and  a  number  went  out.  I  intended  to 
shut  the  door,and  bar  it  upon  them.  I  stepped  up  to  the  table, 
and  laid  my  hand  upon  it,  but  they  soon  returned,  and  I  did 
not  hold  to  it.  The  scuffle  soon  ensued  of  breaking  the  table. 
William  Planner,  an  orthodox  young  man,  took  hold,  and 
held  the  legs,  and  some  others  had  hold,  and  it  was  soon 
broken.  An  orthodox  Friend  got  hold  of  the  door,  and  jerk- 
ed it  against  my  leg,  and  hurt  it  some.  After  the  table  was 
broken,  I  found  that  David  Hilles  was  there,  and  I  saw  some 


at  Steuhcnvillc,  Oliio. 


one  hand  him  the  drawer  of  the  table  to  write  on.  lie  was 
upon  the  east  side  of  the  door. 

About  this  time  some  of  the. orthodox  said  they  had  surren- 
dered, but  others  said  they  had  not.  It  was  proposed  by  the 
orthodox,  after  they  had  consulted  a  little  together,  that  they 
would  adjourn.  And  in  a  very  formal  manner,  they  sent  into 
the  women's  meeting,  and  got  permission  to  adjourn.  It  was 
the  representatives,  and  I  conclude  the  orthodox  thought  that 
they  were  the  Yearly  Meeting.  Soon  after  they  came  to  this 
conclusion  they  went  off.  We  did  not  request  them  to  go 
away,  nor  were  they  interrupted  in  going.  Very  little  was 
said  or  done  on  our  part,  but  we  let  them  go  off  in  peace,  and 
we  went  on  with  the  business  of  the  day,  and  convened  at  a 
certain  hour  in  the  afternoon. 

Did  you  ever  know  a  Yearly  Meeting  to  be  adjourned  by  the 
representatives?  I  never  did  :  that  was  the  first  time.  I  never 
heard  of  such  a  thing,  till  the  orthodox  undertook  to  put  down 
the  society.  Did  you  know  any  thing  about  the  cause  of  that 
alarm?  I  did  not.  I  heard  something  crack  about  that  time, 
and  supposed  that  was  the  cause  of  it. 

Did  you  ever  know  Quarterly  Meetings  to  appoint  door- 
keepers ?  Not  of  my  own  knowledge.  I  have  understood 
that  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  decided  some  years  ago  that  it 
was  not  necessary.  I  have  attended  several  Yearly  Meetings, 
and  I  never  before  saw  such  formidable  arrangements.  If  a 
man  was  not  a  member,  he  was  invited  away  in  a  modest  man- 
ner. Was  there  any  thing  unusual  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
orthodox? 

The  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  which  is  considered  the  head 
of  the  orthodox  party,  had  sent  down  some  testimonies  of  ad- 
vice, issued  in  a  pamphlet  form,  as  recognised  by  the  Meet- 
ing for  Sufferings,  and  signed  by  Jordan  Harrison,  clerk. 
This  document  was  brought  by  a  committee  to  the  Monthly 
Meeting  at  Plainfield.  A  committee  came  from  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting,  and  offered  a  minute  of  their  appointment,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  a  number  of  these  Indiana  testimonies.  The 
subject  was  taken  up  in  the  Monthly  Meeting,  and  discussed; 
and  it  was  generally  concluded  not  to  accept  them,  believing 
that  they  contained  untruths,  and  misrepresentations  of  the 
views  and  principles  held  forth  by  what  they  called  the 
Hicksites.  I  stated  for  one,  that  I  believed  they  contained 
]iositive  falsehoods,  and  we  sent  them  back  to  the  Quarter.  In 
consequence  of  this,  they  laid  us  down.  It  was  stated  on  our 
minutes,  that  they  should  be  sent  back. 

We  conceived  that  we  were  not  bound  to  receive  any  thing 
which  was  not  truth.  And,  as  men  of  veracity,  wishing  to  do 
right  in  the  presence  of  the  Deity,  we  sent  them  back.  The 
subject  was  agitated  in  meeting,  a  minute  was  made,  and  they 
15 


118 


Trial  of  Friends 


were  sent  back  to  the  next  Quarterly  Meeting.  This  com- 
mittee, tliat  attended,  stated  that  our  Monthly  Meeting  was 
in  an  insubordinate  state,  and  that  it  should  be  laid  down. 
We  opposed  it,  but  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  said,  that  we  had  no 
right  to  a  voice.  Others  said  we  had  a  right  to  be  heard,  not 
having  been  disowned.  We  were,  therefore,  permitted  to 
speak,  but  no  attention  was  paid  to  us,  not  being  weiglity 
members.  There  were  a  great  many  voices  against  it,  but  no 
attention  was  paid  to  them,  for  it  was  observed  by  Benjamin 
W.  Ladd,  that  it  was  a  spirit  of  ranterism,  not  worthy  of  no- 
tice. But  the  Monthly  Meeting  was  laid  down,  the  clerk 
taking  the  sense  of  the  orthodox  party,  without  regard  to 
numbers,  or  the  voice  of  our  members. 

Does  your  Monthly  Meeting  continue  to  meet  as  usual? 
We  do  continue  to  meet.  Did  they  give  directions  as  to  the 
property?  They  appointed  a  committee  to  attend  laying  it 
down.  We  attended,  and  told  them  that  we  conceived  we 
were  not  laid  down  according  to  discipline,  nor  according  to 
the  voice  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting;  therefore,  we  could  not 
submit.  I  think  there  were  but  five  voices  against  continuing 
the  meeting,  and  I  suppose  there  are  several  hundred  belong- 
ing to  it.  I  think  there  were  more  than  one  hundred  present 
in  the  men's  end.  They  did  not  all  speak,  but  more  than  I  ever 
heard  in  a  meeting,  objected  to  the  proceedings  of  the  ortho- 
dox, as  they  thought  it  was  not  the  voice  of  the  Quarterly 
Meeting.  They  then,  at  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  joined  the 
members  that  went  off  to  Stillwater  Monthly  Meeting.  I 
did  not  attend  our  Monthly  Meeting  at  all,  the  preceding 
month,  when  they  were  to  take  the  papers,  if  we  would  not 
acknowledge  their  right.  We  kept  all  the  records  and  papers 
of  the  men's  meeting,  and  of  the  women's  meeting  in  part. 
There  were  a  number  from  that  Monthly  Meeting  at  the  Yearly 
Meeting,  probably  half  of  the  adult  members.  I  can't  be  po- 
sitive. 

Were  there  any  preparations  made  by  the  orthodox,  previ- 
ous to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  to  hold  exclusive  possession  of  the 
house?  If  so,  what  were  they?  On  Second-day  morning, 
guards  were  at  the  door,  there  were  four  or  five  on  each  side 
of  the  door.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  a  general  conference 
of  the  orthodox  from  other  Yearly  Meetings?  In  the  year  1827, 
there  was  a  meeting  or  conference  appointed.  And  it  was  un- 
derstood, the  same  was  done  by  other  Yearly  Meetings,  and 
many  delegates  attended  the  last  Yearly  Meeting.  There  were 
an  unusual  number  of  orthodox. 

When  a  proposition  is  made  in  your  meetings,  is  it  not  usual 
to  dispose  of  it,  before  another  is  offered?  It  is  so  considered. 
When  an  exception  is  made  to  the  clerk,  and  a  proposition  is 
made  to  appoint  another  clerk,  would  it  be  according  to  usag6 


al  Steubeuville,  Ohio. 


119 


to  interrupt  the  meeting?  By  no  means.  It  would  be  out  of 
order.  It  is  not  in  order;  they  ought  to  wait  till  a  general  ex- 
pression of  sentiment  is  given,  and  as  soon  as  it  is  decided  by 
the  general  voice  of  the  meeting,  then  the  clerk  forms  a  minute 
and  reads  it. 

Would  there  have  been  any  disturbance,  had  it  not  been  for 
the  conduct  of  the  clerk,  in  disturbing  the  meeting?  I  think 
not,  for  it  appeared  to  be  the  voice  of  the  meeting  that  David 
Hilles  should  be  clerk.  Did  you  ever  know  any  part  of  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends,  to  embody  themselves  in  a  dense  mass  round 
the  clerk's  table,  at  the  opening  of  a  meeting  for  discipline?  I 
never  have.  When  a  clerk  is  nominated  and  united  in,  he  goes 
to  the  table  and  goes  on  with  the  business?  That  is  consider- 
ed the  proper  way.  Is  it  usual  to  oppose  force  to  a  clerk  in 
going  to  the  table?  I  never  knew  any  thing  of  that  kind.  Is 
it  not  considered  a  departure  from  your  fundamental  princi- 
ples, to  use  force?  It  is  so  considered.  Was  there  anymore 
force  used  by  one  side  than  the  other?  It  is  hard  to  tell.  There 
was,  if  any  thing,  the  most  on  the  orthodox  side;  for  there  were 
more  strong  men,  and  they  appeared  to  exert  themselves  as 
much. 

Who  compose  your  Yearly  Meeting?  The  members  that 
compose  the  Quarters,  compose  also  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
Have  the  representatives  any  more  voice  in  your  meetings  than 
other  members?  I  think  not.  Has  your  clerk  any  more  au- 
thority than  others?  He  has  no  other  authority,  than  as  a  ser- 
vant of  the  meeting.  Is  it  according  to  the  order  of  your 
society,  for  the  minority  to  govern  the  majority?  No.  You 
have  said  that  the  orthodox  withdrew,  and  sent  a  committee 
to  the  women's  meeting?  Yes.  In  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  was 
there  any  thing  like  two  separate  parties,  till  they  thus  sepa- 
rated? The  Friends  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  were  but  one 
meeting,  till  this  separation;  further  than  that  the  Quarters 
had  divided,  owing  to  difficulties  in  the  society. 

Was  any  thing  said  or  done  by  Friends  at  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, to  exclude  the  orthodox?  On  Third-day  morning,  when 
Elisha  Bates,  and  some  others,  came  and  demanded  the  house 
for  the  use  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  they  were  told,  that  the 
meeting  was  then  in  session,  and  they  were  at  liberty  to  come 
in  and  take  their  seats  as  members  of  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
He  put  the  question  in  a  kind  of  legal  way,  as  if  preparing  to 
go  to  law. 

It  was  proposed  to  divide  the  time,  so  that  both  parties 
might  be  accommodated.  I  tiiink  Amos  Pcaslec  was  speak- 
ing at  the  time  they  came,  but  Elisha  spoke  so  loud,  that  all 
business  had  to  be  suspended.  Then  he  interrupted  the  meet- 
ing?   Yes,  a  person  was  speaking.    Did  he  domand  exclusive 


120 


Trial  of  Fricnris 


possessiou?  He  dcnnancled  possession  fc.r  the  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting,  and  he  was  told  that  it  was  then  in  session. 

Were  you  at  the  conference  at  Plainfield  ?  I  was.  Does  this 
paper  (handing  him  a  paper,)  contain  the  resolutions  of  that 
conference?  Witness  reads  the  paper,  and  says  it  is  the  sub- 
stance of  the  proceedings  at  that  conference.  How  many 
were  probably  at  the  Yearly  Meeting,  before  the  orthodox 
withdrew  ?  I  cannot  say — perhaps  twelve  hundred  :  I  did  not 
make  a  general  estimate,  as  I  was  convinced  that  there  was  a 
majority  of  Friends  with  us  in  sentiment,  in  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, although  the  orthodox  claimed  a  great  many  more. 

Cross-examination. — You  say  that  it  is  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple in  your  society  to  use  no  force  or  personal  violence  ? 
Yes.  At  the  time  you  advanced  David  Hilles,  did  you  not 
ask  them  to  push  forward  ?  Yes,  and  I  helped  a  little.  Was 
not  that  the  application  of  force  ?  Yes,  it  was  the  application 
of  force,  but  it  was  not  violence.  Then  you  proceeded  to 
place  your  clerk  at  the  table,  by  the  application .  of  force  ? 
Yes,  by  the  application  of  force.  Then  there  was  strength 
employed  ?  Yes,  there  was  strength.  Was  not  this  applica- 
tion of  force  in  contravention  of  a  fundamental  rule,  in  your 
society  ?  I  conceive  it  was,  in  some  degree,  but  I  did  not  con- 
ceive it  any  injury  to  remove  a  man  in  the  passage.  I  was 
determined  to  use  no  personal  injury  to  any  man.  You  had 
determined  to  use  just  so  much  force  as  was  necessary  to 
carry  your  point  f  It  was  my  determination  to  move  on  with 
sufficient  force  to  get  into  the  neighbourhood  of  the  stove,  and 
there  to  have  a  table.  I  did  not  think  of  going  into  the  gal- 
lery, for  fear  of  being  hurt.  I  wanted  to  take  up  the  clerk  as 
far  as  the  stove,  and  he  appeared  to  be  quite  passive.  Did 
you  not  know  of  similar  force  by  your  party  to  get  into  the 
house?  I  heard  some  noise  at  the  door,  and  an  orthodox 
Friend  cried  out,  don't  struggle.  I  saw  the  crowds  rush  in, 
and  there  appeared  to  be  some  force.  There  were  persons 
there  who  wished  to  come  in,  and  the  young  men  pushed  them 
in,  and  many  very  contrary  to  their  wishes.  Were  those  who 
rushed  in  principally  composed  of  your  party?  They  were, 
because  the  orthodox  had  got  in  as  a  chosen  few.  Do  you 
know  of  any  individual  members  being  opposed  in  enter- 
ing ?  I  do  not  know  of  any  one  in  particular.  Were  you  at 
Updegraff's  school  house  ?  (a  school  house  in  Mount  Plea- 
sant.) Yes,  it  was  on  the  Seventh-day  previous  to  the  Y'^early 
Meeting.  What  was  the  object  of  that  conference?  It  was 
understood,  that  there  would  be  obstructions  to  our  getting 
into  the  house,  on  Second-day,  from  the  circumstance  of  their 
having  applied  force  at  some  of  our  Quarterly  Meetings.  And 
the  committee  who  were  appointed  at  Plainfield,  proposed  to 


at  Steubcnville,  Ohio. 


131 


meet  on  Seventh-day,  to  consult  what  to  do,  and  I  went  to  the 
conference  at  the  school  house  at  Mount  Pleasant.  In  that 
conference  the  conclusion  was,  to  go  to  the  meeting  as  at 
other  times,  and  if  we  could  not  get  in  without  force  or  vio- 
lence, it  would  then  be  a  question,  whether  we  would  not  go 
somewhere  else  and  hold  a  Yearly  Meeting.  There  was  some- 
thing said  that  we  should  probably  need  a  clerk,  and  it  was 
mentioned  that  David  Hilles  would  be  a  suitable  person. 

It  was  proposed,  by  the  most  weighty  part  of  the  meeting, 
that  we  should  go  there  as  if  nothing  had  taken  place,  and  do 
as  we  should  see  best  when  we  got  there.  It  was  supposed 
from  the  past  conduct  of  the  clerk,  that  he  would  not  act  for 
the  meeting;  and  that  they  would  order  us  out,  and  say  that 
we  were  disowned.  It  was  my  opinion  before,  that  Jona- 
than Taylor  was  not  fit  for  clerk.  He  had  gone  off  with  the 
separatists  at  New  York,  and  held  a  spurious  meeting  at  the 
Medical  Hall.  Were  there  no  other  accusations  against  the 
clerk,  which  induced  you  to  suppose  that  your  party  would 
appoint  a  new  clerk  ?  I  think  of  nothing  more,  nor  was  there 
any  conclusion  come  to  upon  the  subject.  Were  Peaslee  and 
French  there?  They  were.  Was  it  not  agreed,  that,  if  it 
should  be  found  necessary  to  appoint  a  clerk,  some  person 
should  make  the  proposition,  and  was  not  French  the  person 
proposed  ?  I  think  not.  Is  there  any  thing  in  your  discipline 
to  warrant  the  course  pursued  ?  It  is  always  considered,  that 
a  person  who  has  been  guilty  of  any  immoral  acts  is  not  a 
suitable  person  to  be  placed  in  business. 

Have  you  ever  known  an  instance  like  this  ?  In  New  Garden 
Meeting,  about  ten  or  fifteen  years  ago,  a  clerk  had  been 
guilty  of  improper  conduct,  and  it  was  proposed,  that,  in  con- 
sequence of  that  improper  conduct,  he  should  leave  the  place 
of  clerk,  and  another  person  was  appointed  in  his  stead.  The 
fact  was,  that  he  left  the  table,  and  another  one  filled  his 
place.  This  was  in  consequence  of  his  conduct  between  the 
previous  sitting  of  the  Monthly  Meeting,  and  the  time  alluded 
to.  Did  any  body  wait  on  Jonathan  Taylor,  or  had  it  been  ad- 
vised that  the  Monthly  Meeting  should  take  up  the  subject  ?  I 
can't  say. 

The  court  adjourned  till  2  o'clock. 

Saturday  the  1 8lh,  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Cross-examination  continued. — Did  the  orthodox  make  a  move 
before  your  party  advanced  upon  them  ?  The  first  opposition 
was  a  few  feet  from  where  we  started,  by  a  young  man  who 
knocked  about  pretty  lively.  Those  occupying  the  ministers' 
gallery  used  no  exertion?  We  did  not  go  to  the  gallery,  but 
when  we  were  stopped,  we  concluded  we  would  gel  the  table. 
He  was  taken  back  to  the  stove,  and  there  opened  the  meet- 


122 


Trial  of  Friends 


ing;  but  afterwards,  he  was  taken  into  the  gallery.  Had  he 
the  reports  with  him  ?  He  had,  previous  to  his  coming  to 
the  stove,  and  I  understood  they  were  jerked  out  of  his  hands. 

After  Hilles  got  to  the  stove,  did  you  see  any  of  the  ortho- 
dox party  make  use  of  violence  to  resist  you  ?  One  carried 
me  off  a  considerable  distance — I  was  perfectly  passive.  One 
got  hold  of  me,  and  jerked  me  partly  down — I  think  it  was 
Jonathan  Stanley.  I  think  there  were  but  two  or  three  voices 
opposing  David  Hilles'  appointment.  How  many  were  there 
in  favour  of  it  ?  There  was  a  very  large  number.  Do  you 
think  there  were  as  many  as  a  hundred  Yes,  more  than  a 
hundred.  You  think  there  were  about  twelve  hundred  present  ? 
Yes. 

Of  those  that  attended  the  meeting,  was  it  not  evident  to 
your  senses,  that  the  greatest  number  went  with  the  orthodox  ? 
There  were  a  great  many  in  that  meeting  who  were  not  mem- 
bers, who  went  off  with  the  orthodox,  being  probably  nearer 
related  to  them  than  to  us.  Were  there  probably  fifty  of 
this  class  ?  I  should  say  more  than  that.  How  many  do 
you  suppose  remained  at  that  meeting  ?  On  Third-day  I 
suppose  there  were  near  four  hundred,  after  the  separation, 
and  the  orthodox  had  gone  to  Short  Creek  house.  Was  Jona- 
than Pierce  present  at  the  conference,  at  the  school  house  in 
Mount  Pleasant  ?  It  is  my  impression  that  he  was.  I  did  not 
see  Jehu  Lewis  nor  Moses  Metcalf.  Here  Mr.  Tappan  offered 
a  copy  of  the  minutes  of  Plainfield  conference,  but  it  was  ob- 
jected to,  and  the  judge  decided  that  it  was  not  admissible. 

Cross-examination  continued. — Witness  did  not  know  of  any 
arrangement,  that  the  reports  should  be  returned  to  David 
Hilles.  It  was  mentioned  at  the  school  house,  that  the  ortho- 
dox had  commenced  barring  the  doors,  but  it  was  recom- 
mended that  we  should  be  patient  and  not  use  violence;  that 
we  should  do  our  duty  as  members  of  a  christian  church.  It 
is  a  principle  among  Quakers  not  to  pre-determine.  We 
agreed  to  nothing  like  breaking  a  lath,  but  that  idea  was  pro- 
bably suggested  by  the  orthodox  party. 

William  Sharon  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  society 
of  Friends  ?  I  am  not,  but  I  was  at  Mount  Pleasant,  First, 
Second,  and  Third-days.  On  First-day,  Elias  Hicks  got  up 
and  preached  for  some  length  of  time.  Elisha  Bates  then  got  up, 
and  stated  that  this  man  came  into  the  Friends'  meeting,  con- 
trary to  the  order  of  Friends,  and  that  his  doctrines  were  er- 
roneous. Elias  rose  to  reply;  but  Elisha  Bates  rose  and  said, 
he  wished  the  people  to  leave  the  house  immediately.  In 
the  afternoon  Elias  went  somewhere  else.  I  went  to  the  meet- 
ing in  Mount  Pleasant.  Elisha  Dawson  rose  and  spoke  for 
some  time,  and  was  followed  by  Amos  Peaslee.  Elisha  Bates 
whispered  to  Jonathan  Taylor,  and  Jonathan  ordered  Peaslee 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


12S 


to  sit  down,  but  he  did  not  sit  down.  Many  rose  up  and  said, 
"sit  down.  Bates."  Two  men  went  into  the  entry,  and  I 
thought  it  was  to  take  him  out.  But  Amos  Peaslee  said,  "for 
mercy's  sake,  be  still."  Joseph  Steer  jerked  him  against  the 
wall,  but  he  spoke  on  and  delivered  what  he  had  to  say. 

Anna  Braithwaite  then  got  up  and  said,  that  Peaslee  was  a 
disowned  member.  And  when  she  sat  down  he  said,  "al- 
though I  am  smitten,  it  does  not  become  me  to  return  the 
same."    (Objected  to.) 

Mr.  Hubbard  said,  the  court  would  recollect  that  one  of  the 
reasons  assigned  for  removing  the  clerk  on  Second-day  was, 
that  he  had  been  guilty  of  improper  conduct  the  day  previous, 
by  his  rudeness  to  Peaslee,  who  was  an  approved  minister. 
And  if  in  showing  that,  the  witness  repeats  the  language 
which  another  has  used,  it  cannot  be  said  he  shall  not  go  on. 
We  introduce  this  person  to  show,  that  there  was  a  disturbance 
on  Sunday,  and  that  the  orthodox  party  did  conduct  them- 
selves towards  Peaslee  in  such  a  manner  as  to  violate  the 
rules  of  the  church.  We  think,  therefore,  the  witness  has 
a  right,  in  this  instance,  to  give  the  language  that  passed.  It 
is  to  show  a  transaction  in  which  we  conceive  a  party  did  dis- 
turb the  public  worship  of  the  society;  and  that  this  led  to  the 
introduction  of  a  proposition  to  remove  the  clerk. 

Witness  proceeded  to  state,  that  the  ne's.t  day  he  happened 
to  be  at  the  meeting  house  at  Mount  Pleasant— he  had  no  in- 
tention to  go  in,  or  to  intrude  upon  the  society  in  any  way, 
but  he  discovered  that  guards  were  stationed  at  the  doors,  that 
some  were  pushing  in,  and  that  others  were  kept  out.  Directly 
there  came  a  crowd  along  and  pushed  into  the  house.  Pretty 
soon  after  they  got  in,  there  was  an  alarm  in  the  house  that 
the  galleries  were  coming  down,  and  they  came  out  in  a  rush. 
I  stepped  in,  to  see  if  the  galleries  had  come  down,  and  there 
was  nothing  of  it.  The  meeting  appeared  to  be  somewhat 
composed,  and  they  urged  the  clerk  to  \go  to  business,  but 
Benjamin  W.  Ladd  said,  he  would  not  submit  to  such  con- 
duct. He  said,  that  Hilles  was  a  disturber  of  the  peace.  A 
move  was  made  to  break  up  the  meeting — some  said  it  was 
the  orthodox  only,  and  they  withdrew  and  went  off. 

I  thought  they  had  separated,  but  on  Third-day  morning  I 
discovered  them  coming  down  again  in  a  body,  and  as  I  was 
close  by,  I  stepped  up.  Bates  stepped  into  the  door  and  de- 
manded the  meeting  house  for  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting;  he 
was  told  that  the  meeting  was  then  in  session,  and  that  they 
might  gome  in  and  sit  among  them;  but  he  wanted  an  explicit 
answer.  They  stated  something  like  a  willingness  to  give  up 
the  house  half  the  day,  but  it  was  rejected. 

On  Monday  morning  I  went  there  pretty  early,  perhaps  an 
hour  before  the  alarm.  You  say  there  were  guards  at  tlie  door.^ 


124 


Trial  of  Friends 


Joseph  Steer,  and  one  other  were  outside,  and  I  saw  others  in- 
side whom  I  took  to  be  guards.  They  stopped  two  or  three. 
I  did  not  see  any  pushing,  but  their  hands  were  placed  across 
the  doors.  Who  were  those  that  made  the  rush?  There  were 
a  great  many  there,  who  I  presume  did  not  belong  to  the  so- 
ciety. They  pushed  the  guards  in ;  and  I  suppose,  from  what 
I  could  see,  that  perhaps  David  Steer  was  pushed  down.  He 
came  out  into  the  yard.  I  saw  two  women  who  said  they  had 
been  hindered  from  going  in.  He  said  he  would  see  that  they 
were  admitted.  He  went  with  them  and  after  some  discourse, 
they  were  admitted.  Was  any  thing  said  after  the  table  was 
broken?  Yes,  one  man  rose,  and  proposed  that  the  house 
should  be  divided  between  the  two  parties,  so  as  to  accommo- 
date both  parties.  But  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  got  up,  and  said 
that  this  man  was  not  a  member.  I  think  it  was  Halliday 
Jackson,  and  that  he  came  from  over  the  mountains.  Are  you 
a  member  of  this  society?   No,  I  never  was  a  member. 

Levi  Pickering  affirmed. — Were  you  at  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting? 
I  was.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  society?  I  am.  I  went  to 
the  meeting  house  on  Second-day  morning,  somewhere  near 
10  o'clock.  I  was  not  there  the  day  previous.  I  went  near 
the  door,  and  several  were  standing  in  the  door.  I  knew  Da- 
vid Steer,  but  did  not  know  the  others.  There  were  a  number 
of  Friends  with  me.  One  stepped  to  the  door,  and  they  put 
up  their  hands,  and  said  he  could  not  go  in,  that  he  was  not  a 
member.  He  said  he  was  a  member  of  Flushing  Meeting, 
that  he  had  always  been  a  member,  and  was  never  disowned, 
that  he  knew  of.  As  I  had  heard  that  it  was  only  such  and 
such  ones  that  were  brought  into  question,  I  spoke  a  word  in 
his  behalf,  and  they  let  him  in. 

By  this  time  Amos  Peaslee,  Elisha  Dawson,  and  a  number 
of  others  came  up.  When  we  went  near  the  door,  I  heard 
some  one  speaking  as  though  in  supplication.  Amos  Peaslee 
said  in  a  low  voice,  some  one  is  speaking,  we  had  better  not 
go  in  to  disturb  the  meeting.  We  stopped  perhaps  three 
minutes,  and  by  that  time  a  great  many  were  round  the  door. 
As  soon  as  the  voice  ceased,  we  attempted  to  go  in.  There 
was  no  opposition  to  my  going  in,  but  they  said  the  others 
could  not  go  in.     I  asked  why  they  could  not  go  in. 

I  went  to  go  in,  and  by  this  time  they  were  pushing  us. 
Amos  Peaslee  said,  "  dear  friends,  don't  push,  be  peaceable;  if 
we  are  not  admitted  we  can't  help  it.  If  we  can  go  in  peace- 
ably, well,  and  if  not,  we  will  go  away."  By  that  time  they 
pushed  pretty  hard  against  me;  and  I  pressed  back,  deter- 
mined not  to  go  in.  They  kept  pushing,  till  I  was  nearly 
down.  Elisha  Dawson  was  also  near  falling,  and  I  caught 
hold  to  prevent  him  from  going  down.  The  pressure  was  so 
great  from  without,  that  notwithstanding  the  pressure  back, 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


J25 


by  the  guards  and  others,  we  went  into  the  liouse.  1  was 
sent  ten  or  fifteen  feet  before  I  could  stop. 

After  this  the  meeting  was  pretty  quiet.  It  sat  some  little 
time  in  stillness,  as  is  usual  at  all  times.  This  pause  was 
about  the  same  as  is  customary,  unless  some  one  engages  in 
vocal  prayer,  or  in  the  line  of  the  ministry. 

Israel  French  rose,  and  stated  that  owing  to  the  circum- 
stance of  the  clerk,  since  last  year,  so  conducting,  he  thought 
he  was  not  qualified  to  open  that  meeting  ;  and  I  think  he 
stated  some  reason,  but  I  am  not  positive.  When  he  made  the 
proposition,  there  was  a  uniting  of  the  meeting,  the  largest 
uniting  that  I  have  been  acquainted  with;  and  I  have  attended 
all  the  sessions  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  and  have  been  in 
Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting. 

After  this,  Jonathan  Taylor  proceeded  to  open  the  meeting. 
Then  some  person,  whom  I  believed  to  be  a  representative 
from  Redstone  Quarter,  proposed  the  name  of  David  Hilles, 
and  it  was  also  united  with  by  a  larger  number  than  I  had 
ever  heard  unite  with  a  proposition  in  a  Yearly  Meeting 
before.  And  as  it  regards  being  done  in  an  unbecoming 
manner,  I  must  say,  if  it  was  the  case,  it  did  not  strike  me  so 
then;  nor  had  I  heard  it  so  stated,  till  I  came  into  this  house; 
though  they  spake  in  quick  succession  one  after  another. 
They  spoke  quick,  though  not  quicker  than  I  have  known 
before,  but  I  never  have  known  so  many  to  speak. 

Jonathan  Taylor  proceeded  to  read  the  opening  minute,  and 
to  call  the  representatives ;  and  as  far  as  I  recollect,  they 
mostly  answered,  though  there  was  considerable  confusion. 
Those  in  favour  of  David  Hilles  acting  as  clerk,  insisted  on 
his  coming  to  the  table.  He  was  urged  by  several,  that  is,  by 
voices  requesting  him  to  come  to  the  table.  With  that  there 
were  a  number  who  came  along  up  the  gangway  from  the 
south  door.  I  suppose  David  Hilles  was  in  that  company; 
although  I  did  not  see  him,  that  I  know  of,  till  he  came  to  the 
stove.  There  was  then  a  pause,  as  if  he  was  going  to  write 
something. 

I  did  not  see  David  use  any  force,  but  there  were  eight,  ten 
or  a  dozen  pushing  him  forward,  and  as  many  pushing  the 
other  way.  I  stood  eight  or  ten  feet  off  upon  one  of  the  rais- 
ed seats.  There  was  considerable  pushing  on  both  sides. 
When  the  cry  took  place,  a  number  ran  out,  of  both  parties. 
Being  pretty  well  acquainted  with  Friends,  I  do  not  know 
who  ran  the  most.  When  it  was  first  suggested,  I  did  not 
see  much  reason  for  apprehension  ;  but  the  second  time,  a 
board  broke,  or  split,  or  something  like  it,  and  somebody 
said  the  galleries  are  falling,  or  words  to  that  amount.  It 
would  seem  as  though  tliere  were  something  like  ten  or 
a  dozen  pushing  and  pulling.  It  appeared  to  me  that  tlic 
16 


126 


Trial  of  FrienJt 


ministers  next  to  Taylor  were  pulling  towards  him,  and  that 
others  were  pulling  towards  Hilles.  The  first  breaking  of 
the  table  was  by  one  of  the  young  Planners,  who  pulled  one  leg 
off,  next  to  Jonathan  Taylor,  and  handed  it  along  the  ministers' 
bench  5  and  one  of  the  orthodox  Friends,  from  Philadelphia  I 
think,  took  it  and  put  it  under  the  bench- 
There  was  a  pushing  and  pulling,  back  and  forth,  this  way 
and  that,  till  some  one  said  they  are  hurting  Jonathan  Taylor. 
Presently  the  table  was  pulled  to  pieces,  and  after  it  was 
broken,  I  think  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  said.  Friends,  let  us  now 
surrender,  or,  give  up,  I  think  we  have  contended  long  enough. 
James  Heald  said,  I  will  not  surrender,  this  meeting-house 
belongs  to  me.  I  think  Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  owing  to  this  cir- 
cumstance, proposed  that  the  meeting  should  adjourn,  and 
some  one  inquired  if  Jonathan  Taylor  was  in  the  house.  It 
was  replied,  that  he  was  in  the  house.  They  then  called  over 
the  representatives,  to  see  if  they  would  adjourn  the  meeting; 
and  they  answered,  most  of  them,  and  agreed  to  the  adjourn- 
ment. 

It  was  remarked  on  the  other  side,  that  the  meeting  was 
not  adjourning,  it  was  only  the  orthodox  party.  Perhaps 
there  were  not  more  than  two  or  three  objections  made  to 
their  adjourning.  At  that  time  Halliday  Jackson  spoke,  and 
said  that  he  hoped  Friends  would  act  like  Christians  towards 
each  other,  and  make  some  arrangement,  by  which  both  par- 
ties could  be  accommodated  with  the  house.  It  would  be 
much  better  on  both  sides,  or  words  to  that  amount.  Benja- 
min W.  Ladd  said,  that  he  was  not  a  member;  or  that  he  was 
an  intruder  there,  and  wished  no  notice  to  be  taken  of  any 
such  proposition.  After  this,  the  orthodox  party  soon  left  the 
house. 

Were  you  present  on  Third-day  morning?  I  was.  How 
many  persons  do  you  suppose  were  present  on  Second-day, 
belonging  to  Friends,  including  all  the  different  parties?  I 
did  try  in  my  own  mind  to  make  an  estimate.  I  suppose 
when  they  were  all  together,  taking  members  and  those  who 
were  not  members,  that  there  were  at  least  1500  persons.  It 
is  difficult  to  answer  the  question  with  correctness,  but  I  sup- 
pose it  very  possible  from  the  best  evidence  I  could  get,  that 
one  hundreiJ  or  more  were  not  members,  perhaps,  more,  per- 
haps less. 

After  the  orthodox  withdrew,  as  I  sat  upon  a  bench  facing 
the  meeting,  with  only  three  benches  back  of  me,  I  attempted 
to  count,  to  see  how  they  averaged  upon  the  different  benches; 
and  from  that  calculation,  I  concluded  that  about  seven  hun- 
dred persons  remained.  I  do  not  know  of  any  who  were  not 
members  being  in  the  house  many  minutes  after  the  orthodox 
withdrew.    It  was  remarked  that  our  meetings  were  usually 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


held  select,  and  that  it  would  be  desirable,  and  very  kind,  if 
there  were  any  present  who  were  not  members,  that  they 
would  withdraw,  and  some  few  v/ithdrew.  I  suppose  that  five 
or  six  hundred  remained.  Some  few  of  the  orthodox  remain- 
ed, perhaps  six,  eight,  or  ten,  and  I  believe  James  Heald  was 
one. 

Are  you  acquainted  with  Israel  French?  I  am.  How  long 
have  you  been  acquainted  with  him  ?  Perhaps  six  or  seven 
years.  Israel  French  is  a  Friend  that  has  always  stood  very 
fair  in  our  society.  He  is  a  man  in  good  standing,  and  one 
that  has  had  a  considerable  of  the  business  of  society  de- 
volving upon  him. 

Do  you,  in  your  society,  or  in  your  meetings,  acknowledge 
an  authority  in  any  set  of  men  over  the  others  ?  I  never  knew 
it  to  be  so.  It  is  a  society  of  perfect  equality  in  theory.  It 
is  true,  that  in  our  meetings  of  business,  and  out  of  meeting, 
we  have  always  considered  that  there  was  this  difference,  that 
those  who  were  exemplary  and  moral  men,  have  stood  higher 
and  have  been  more  looked  up  to  than  others.  The  same  as 
it  is  in  other  societies.  That  is,  men  of  more  experience  have 
been  looked  up  to,  more  than  those  of  less. 

By  the  practice  of  your  society,  has  the  clerk  any  authority 
but  to  register  the  sense  of  the  meeting?  He  has  always 
been  considered  the  servant  of  the  meeting,  in  any  business 
that  the  meeting  might  direct.  It  has  been  a  uniform  prac- 
tice, for  the  clerk  to  be  subject  to  the  voice  of  the  meeting. 
Have  you  ever  known  a  meeting  to  have  the  voice  of  the  mi- 
nority fastened  upon  it,  when  the  majority  opposed.''  I  have 
known  a  meeting  to  be  a  little  divided,  and  the  question  to  be 
laid  over  till  the  next  year.  When  Friends  did  not  see  alike, 
it  was  thought  best  to  continue  till  another  year,  and  then  bring 
it  forward  again. 

When  a  proposition  is  made,  in  any  of  your  meetings,  by  a 
member,  for  the  discussion  of  the  meeting,  is  it  decent  or  or- 
derly for  the  clerk  to  go  on  ?  I  never  knew  it  before.  I  have 
never  seen  a  case  where  a  proposition  was  before  the  meeting, 
that  it  was  not  settled  or  laid  over.  The  late  instance  is  the 
first  deviation  that  I  recollect. 

What  effect  did  the  proceeding  of  the  clerk  have,  as  to  dis- 
order in  the  meeting?  I  do  believe  it  had  the  effect  to  cause 
considerable  disturbance.  I  believe,  that  had  the  clerk  waited 
till  the  proposition  was  fairly  decided,  if  the  majority  had  been 
opposed  to  the  appointment  of  David  Hilles, — if  that  had  been 
the  judgment  of  the  meeting,  David  Hilles  would  not  have 
been  considered  appointed  ;  and  if  the  accusations  against 
Taylor  were  judged  to  be  false,  he  would  have  been  continued. 
I  believe  that  would  have  been  the  result  of  the  meeting. 

Have  you  ever  known  a  Quarterly  Meeting  to  choose  guards: 


128 


Trial  of  F riends 


Yes,  we  have  been  in  the  practice  of  it  for  a  number  of  years. 
If  any  person  appeared,  who  was  not  a  member,  we  were  not 
willing  that  he  should  sit  in  a  meeting  of  business;  this  has 
been  the  case  in  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.  I  do  not  think  it  has 
been  a  uniform  practice  in  all  the  Quarters.  They  have  been 
principally  taken  from  Short  Creek.  I  have  never  known 
them  to  stand  in  the  door,  but  to  stand  out,  or  sit  down  in- 
side. I  have  been  appointed  as  one  of  the  number  myself, 
but  I  never  found  any  thing  to  do.  I  have  never  seen  it  done 
in  the  same  order,  as  at  the  late  Yearly  Meeting.  (In  good  order 
said  one  of  the  counsel  in  an  under  tone  j  in  disorder,  said  the 
opposite  counsel.  Not  quite  so  good  order,  said  another,  if  I 
may  express  an  opinion,  for  I  think,  it  was  rather  a  disadvan- 
tage to  the  society.) 

Cross-examination. — Did  you  mean  that  Taylor's  reading 
disturbed  the  orthodox  part  of  the  meeting?  I  think  it  led  to  a 
disturbance  of  both  parties.  Did  it  tend  to  interrupt  the  or- 
thodox party?  I  think  it  did,  by  exciting  those  opposed  to 
Jonathan  Taylor.  These  proceedings,  you  think,  tended  to 
urge  the  Hicksites  to  advance?  As  I  have  stated  before, 
there  was  a  proposition,  which  I  thought  had  fairly  came  be- 
fore the  meeting,— I  thought  it  in  order;  and  I  think  if  he 
had  not  commenced  reading,  it  would  have  been  settled  better. 
Merely  by  calling  to  order?  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  knew 
Friends  called  to  order.  Did  you  ever  see  a  motion  out  of 
order  ?  I  have  seen  that  which  I  thought  might  better  not  have 
been  made.  Did  you  ever  know  a  motion  out  of  the  order  of 
discipline?  I  recollect  no  instance  at  present. 

Do  you  suppose  that  there  would  have  been  any  disturbance, 
if  the  Hicksites  had  not  proposed  to  appoint  a  new  clerk?  I 
think  there  would  have  been  no  disturbance,  except  the  first 
difficulty  of  getting  into  the  house.  When  I  advanced  to  en- 
ter the  house,  I  took  it  that  David  Steer  moved  a  little  forme, 
but  intended  to  debar  Elisha  Dawson  and  Amos  Peaslee.  I 
declined  going  in  without  they  could  be  admitted.  There 
were,  perhaps,  twenty  persons  round  the  door.  How  long  was 
it  after  the  first  push,  which  you  have  spoken  of,  before  it  was 
repeated?  I  think  Peaslee  had  spoken  a  second  time  when  the 
press  was  made.  Elisha  Dawson  was  near  falling,  and  I  took 
hold  to  raise  him  up  as  he  was  in  the  act  of  falling,  but  I  did 
not  hold  on.  Did  they  say  any  thing  to  Dawson  or  Peaslee? 
They  did  say,  that  they  were  not  members,  or  something  in 
that  way. 

At  what  time  is  a  proposition  considered  as  decided  in  your 
meetings?  When  a  number  have  spoken,  and  the  voices  cease, 
then  it  is  considered  the  voice  of  the  meeting,  and  the  clerk 
makes  a  minute.    After  reading  it,  if  any  part  is  not  satisfac- 


at  Steubenvillc,  Ohio. 


129 


tory,  any  Friend  has  a  right  to  object,  and  it  may  be  amended. 
Did  you  understand,  that,  after  the  proposition  was  made  to 
appoint  David  Hilles  clerk,  there  was  sufficient  time,  if  the 
clerk  had  been  ready,  to  have  entered  a  minute?  He  might 
have  written  something,  but  I  think  there  was  hardly  time 
enough — there  was  a  pause,  but  I  would  say  there  was  hardly 
time  enough  to  enter  a  minute.  Was  there  enough  after  the 
proposition  by  Israel  French?  There  was.  There  was  no  call 
on  the  clerk?  It  is  not  usual;  besides,  it  was  thought  he  was 
not  qualified.  Was  it  not  requested  several  times,  that  Jo- 
nathan Taylor  should  make  a  minute  of  his  displacement  ? 
And  when  a  new  clerk  has  been  appointed,  has  not  the 
old  clerk  usually  made  a  minute,  when  present?  (Answer 
not  understood.)  Did  you  ever  know  an  instance  where 
the  minute  of  the  appointment  of  a  new  clerk  was  not  made 
Tjy  the  old  one,  when  he  was  present?  (No  answer  heard.)  Did 
you  ever  know  an  attempt  to  carry  a  new  clerk  to  the  table, 
giving  to  the  old  one  no  time  to  make  a  minute  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  new  one,  or  to  enter  the  decision  of  the  meeting? 
Never.  When  the  proposition  of  Israel  French  was  offered, 
and  before  David  Hilles  was  named,  was  there  a  pause  suffi- 
cient to  enter  a  minute?  I  have  said  I  thought  there  was  not 
sufficient  time. 

Is  it  according  to  the  usage  of  the  society  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  clerk  to  make  a  minute?  I  never  knew  an  instance, 
although  I  think  it  Avould  be  right  so  to  do.  Had  David 
Hilles  any  of  the  documents  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio? 
I  imagine  he  had  not.  He  had  some  papers  in  his  hands.  Did 
he  get  them  from  the  clerk's  table?  I  do  not  know.  How  long 
•was  it  after  his  appointment  was  united  in,  before  you  saw 
him  have  them?  It  was,  I  suppose,  after  he  was  proposed,  not 
half  an  hour.  I  felt  much  hurt  with  the  proceedings,  so  much 
so,  that  I  was  not  capable  of  determining  the  time  precisely, 
or  of  describing  all  that  passed. 

Did  you  know  any  thing  of  an  arrangement  about  propos- 
ing David  Hilles?  I  did  not. 

Questioned  by  the  Judge. — After  the  proposition  by  French, 
and  his  statement  with  respect  to  the  clerk's  disqualifying 
himself,  how  much  time  was  taken  up  in  discussing  the  sub- 
ject, or  in  expressing  opinions?  Probably  from  five  to  ten  mi- 
nutes, as  much  time  as  is  usual.  I  think  two  or  three  gave 
their  dissent — I  knew  of  only  two,  to  the  best  of  my  know- 
ledge. 

How  much  time  was  taken  up  with  the  proposition  to  ap- 
point Hilles?  There  was  about  the  same  time  as  with  the 
other  proposition,  and  about  the  same  number  of  voices. 

Cross-examinationcontinued.— You  do  not  think  there  was  lime 
sufficient  for  making  a  minute  ?   Hardly.    How  many  voices 


130 


Trial  of  Friends 


did  there  appear  to  be  expressing  a  unity  with  the  proposi- 
tions? There  must  have  been  more  than  a  hundred,  perhaps 
two  hundred.  It  was  like  the  ayes  and  noes  in  a  large 
assembly.  It  might  have  been  rather  faster  and  more  mixed 
than  usual}  but  then  there  were  so  many  voices  more  than 
is  common,  that  it  might  have  made  it  appear  so  to  me. 

Taylor  did  not  appear  like  making  a  minute,  he  appeared 
to  be  otherwise  engaged.  I  understood  that  French's  propo- 
sition was,  to  appoint  a  clerk  for  the  day — I  never  knew  re- 
presentatives to  name  apro  tempore  clerk.  The  representatives, 
the  next  day,  brought  in  the  name  of  David  Hilles,  and  report- 
ed it  to  the  meeting;  they  named  David  Hilles  to  serve  as 
clerk,  and  Jehu  Lewis  as  assistant,  and  the  meeting  united 
with  the  nomination. 

David  Scholfield  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  society 
of  Friends?  I  am.  Were  you  at  the  late  Yearly  Meeting?  I 
was.  I  attended  the  meeting  at  Mount  Pleasant  on  First-day 
morning,  as  usual.  About  the  usual  time  of  gathering,  and 
after  a  little  time  of  silence,  Elias  Hicks  rose  and  spoke  for 
about  forty  minutes.  I  took  out  my  watch  and  looked.  After 
he  sat  down,  Elisha  Bates  spoke  for  the  space  of  twenty-five 
minutes  in  direct  opposition.  I  did  not  consider  it  like  preach- 
ing, and  I  apprehend  he  did  not  himself.  After  he  sat  down, 
Anna  Braithwaite  rose,  a  female  minister  or  missionary  from 
England.  She  spoke  forty-five  minutes,  pretty  much  after  the 
manner  of  Elisha  Bates.  It  was  not  in  the  usual  manner,  but, 
in  my  apprehension,  rather  disorderly. 

After  this,  Elias  Hicks  rose  to  make  some  reply,  and  they 
broke  up  the  meeting  in  a  very  abrupt  and  disorderly  manner. 
I  went  to  the  meeting  in  the  afternoon.  They  were  unusually 
long  in  gathering;  the  people  kept  coming  in  and  going  out. 
After  being  there  some  time,  Elisha  Dawson  rose  and  spoke 
some  time.  Soon  after  him,  Amos  Peaslee  rose,  and  ad- 
dressed the  meeting  in  a  very  feeling  manner  for  a  consider- 
able time,  when  Thomas  Shillitoe  and  Anna  Braithwaite  com- 
menced whispering,  and  it  passed  to  the  next,  and  to  the  next 
a  second  time,  and  extended  down  till  it  came  to  Elisha  Bates. 
He  turned  and  whispered  to  Jonathan  Taylor,  and  he  back  to 
Elisha  Bates.  It  passed  back  and  forth  several  times,  and  at 
length  Jonathan  Taylor  rose,  and  requested  Amos  Peaslee  to 
please  to  take  his  seat,  as  he  considered  him  a  disturber  of 
the  meeting,  and  that  he  had  no  right  to  speak  there,  not  be- 
ing a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends. 

Amos  Peaslee  remained  standing  on  his  feet  in  silence,  while 
Taylor  was  speaking;  and  as  soon  as  Taylor  sat  down,  he  re- 
sumed speaking  as  if  nothing  had  happened.  In  a  short  space 
Elisha  Bates  rose  in  a  very  abrupt  manner,  and  in  a  loud 
voice  exclaimed,  "  Amos  Peaslee,  M'ilt  thou  please  to  take  thy 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


131 


seat.  Thou  art  an  intruder,  and  hast  no  right  to  be  in  this 
house."  I  thought  it  was  the  loudest  voice  I  ever  heard  in  a 
meeting  in  my  lifej  and  as  Amos  was  only  two  or  three  from 
him,  if  he  had  wanted  to  speak  to  him,  he  might  have  done  it 
in  a  lower  voice.  A  person  near  by,  rose  and  said,  "  Elisha 
Bates,  sit  down;"  and  it  was  soon  extended  over  the  whole  meet- 
ing, Elisha  Bates,  sit  down!  Elisha  Bates,  sit  down.  It  created 
great  confusion;  many  got  up  to  see,  some  rose  on  the  benches, 
and  some  on  the  backs  of  the  benches.  There  appeared  to  be 
a  little  stillness,  and  Amos  Peaslee  said,  "  by  the  mercy  of 
God,  I  beseech  you  to  be  still." 

The  meeting  became  quiet,  and  Peaslee  continued  to  speak 
for  twenty  or  thirty  minutes,  and  took  his  seat.  There  was 
some  little  whispering,  back  and  forth,  and  Amos  replied  to 
it.  The  next  day,  about  half  past  nine,  I  was  told  the  doors 
were  opened,  and  I  went  to  the  meetinghouse — it  was  raining 
pretty  smartly.  I  set  my  foot  upon  the  door  sill,  and  a  person 
put  his  hand  to  my  stomach,  and  exclaimed:  "  thee  is  not  com- 
ing in  here;  I  am  set  here  to  keep  this  door,  and  I  shall  keep 
all  such  men  as  thee  out."  I  immediately  felt  a  press  at  my 
back,  shoving  forward.  I  raised  my  foot  again  to  step 
into  the  door,  but  he  clapped  his  hand  to  my  breast,  and  se- 
veral others  in  the  house  came  to  his  assistance;  and  the  pres- 
sure behind  shoved  me  on  to  him.  They  pressed  my  breast 
so  that  I  was  scarcely  able  to  get  my  breath,  but  I  got  to  the 
stove  and  leaned  on  it  for  some  minutes. 

While  at  the  stove,  I  noticed  that  all  the  raised  seats  were 
full,  and  the  benches  near  by  were  fuller  than  I  ever  saw.  I 
looked  around,  and  saw  that  about  six  benches  facing  the  gal- 
lery were  also  filled;  not  so  crowded,  but  they  were  well  filled. 
After  I  had  been  standing  some  time,  a  person  on  the  third 
bench  near  the  stove,  beckoned  me  to  come  and  sit  down, 
leaving  one  seat  between  me  and  the  end  of  the  bench,  where  I 
remained  till  the  confusion  was  all  over,  sometimes  sitting 
and  sometimes  standing  on  the  bench. 

After  some  time  Thomas  Shillitoe  from  England  went  to 
prayer,  and  his  prayer  was  very  singular,  such  as  I  never  heard 
before.  Instead  of  praying  for  the  salvation  of  souls,  he  prayed 
for  victory  that  day.  He  hoped  the  Lord  would  give  his  ser- 
vants victory  that  day.  After  this  there  was  a  bustle,  or  burst  of 
others  coming  in,  and  I  saw  among  them  Elisha  Dawson  and 
Amos  Peaslee.  The  meeting  then  seemed  to  get  into  a  quiet 
state,  and  remained  so  for  some  time,  as  long  perhaps  as  is 
usual  before  proceeding  to  business.  Israel  French  rose  and 
observed  that  a  painful  duty  devolved  on  him,  inasmuch  as  the 
conduct  of  the  clerks  had  been  such,  since  the  last  year,  that 
in  his  opinion,  they  had  rendered  themselves  incompetent  to 


132 


Trial  of  Friends 


serve  the  meeting  acceptably.  He  said  it  was  painful,  but  Tie 
esteemed  it  to  be  his  duty.  Although  it  was  very  trying^  for 
him  to  do  it,  yet  it  was  his  opinion,  that  the  meeting  had  bet- 
ter appoint  another  clerk  for  the  present  sitting,  which  was 
united  in  by  many  voices,  and  not  a  word  objected  as  I  heard, 
and  I  was  paying  particular  attention. 

A  pause  ensued,  and  sufficient  time  was  given  for  objections, 
if  any  were  to  be  made.  Some  one  named  David  Hilles  to  serve 
the  meeting  as  clerk,  which  was  united  with  by  a  great  many 
voices.  And  if  my  recollection  serves  me  right,  soon  after, 
some  one  proposed  Jehu  Lewis  as  assistant  clerk.  This  was 
not  the  same  voice  that  named  David  Hilles,  nor  in  the  same 
place.  Soon  after  Jehu  was  named,  Jonathan  Taylor  rose  and 
read  an  opening  minute,  which  occasioned  a  greater  burst  of 
voices  than  there  otherwise  would  have  been. 

After  this,  Jonathan  Taylor  proceeded,  on  the  part  of  the 
orthodox,  to  call  the  names  of  the  representatives,  some  of 
whom  answered,  and  some  did  not.  At  the  same  time  there 
were  several  voices,  requesting  David  Hilles  to  come  forward 
to  the  table.  Some  time  ensued,  and  I  discovered  a  company 
moving  very  slowly  from  the  south  door,  towards  the  clerk's 
table.  When  they  came  near,  I  discovered  David  Hilles  in 
the  fore  part,  and  others  were  pushing  him  forward.  He 
appeared  to  use  no  exertion,  except  to  move  his  feet.  One 
young  man,  a  neighbour  of  mine,  I  saw  jerking,'and  jamming, 
and  striking  with  his  elbows;  and  they  pushed  David  Hilles 
along  up  to  the  gallery  steps. 

As  he  was  coming  along,  I  saw  many  rise  up  in  the  galle- 
ries, and  come  towards  the  clerk's  table,  where  they  formed  a 
solid  column.  And  when  the  two  columns  met,  as  it  were, 
there  was  pretty  violent  pushing  on  both  sides.  James  Heald 
stood  on  the  first  raised  step,  and  said  something  like  this:  that 
the  house  was  in  his  possession.  I  saw  him  shove  several  peo- 
ple; and  when  they  would  not  stand  back,  he  jerked  them  out 
of  the  ranks,  and  others  were  assisting  him.  They  continued 
moving  on,  till  at  length  the  crowd  became  so  dense  that  I  saw 
them  shoved  at  one  jostle  as  much  as  two  or  three  feet,  and 
then  they  rather  desisted.  Some  proposed  that  they  should 
not  attempt  to  go  to  the  table,  but  would  open  the  meeting  in 
some  other  part  of  the  house.  I  saw  them  spread  some  papers 
on  the  stove,  and  soon  after  this,  Hilles  commenced  reading, 
and  they  said  he  wrote  a  minute  there. 

About  this  time,  Jonathan  Taylor  was  reading  a  minute. 
And  as  I  looked  round,  I  saw  young  Richards  getting  over  the 
bench,  and  Joseph  Steer  jerked  him  down  on  the  floor,  as  I 
thought  pretty  severely.  About  the  same  time,  I  saw  Isaac 
James  going  into  the  gallery;  Jacob  Richards  was  on  the  west 
side,  and  Isaac  James  on  the  other;  he  appeared  to  be  carried 


at  Sleubcnville,  Ohio. 


133 


by  the  two  parties  clear  from  the  floor,  one  party  pushing  one 
way,  and  the  other,  the  other  way.  It  appeared  to  be  with 
about  equal  violence,  and  very  doubtful  who  would  gain  the 
victory.  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  pushed  against  him  as  he  was 
getting  over  the  railing,  and  jammed  him  up  with  as  much  vio- 
lence as  I  ever  saw  used  by  one  man  towards  another.  I  cried 
out,  Benjamin  Ladd,  thou  art  committing  violencej  and  he  de- 
sisted. 

Soon  after  this,  I  heard  a  noise  like  something  breaking  in 
the  gallery,  and  some  one  cried  out,  the  youth's  gallery  is  fall- 
ing. The  first  man  I  heard  was  in  the  ministers'  gallery,  half- 
way from  the  table  to  the  women's  meeting,  and  a  rush  to  get 
out  of  the  house  immediately  ensued.  They  rushed  out  of  the 
doors  and  windowsj  it  was  such  a  rush  as  I  never  saw  any 
where.  During  this  time,  the  door  back  of  the  table,  which 
had  been  kept  shut,  was  opened,  and  the  people  in  tlie  galle- 
ries ran  out  that  door,  as  fast  as  they  did  out  of  the  other  doors. 
By  this  means  there  were  a  great  many  more  of  the  party 
called  orthodox  who  got  out  than  there  were  of  tlie  other  party; 
because  they  had  that  door  exclusively  to  themselves. 

The  alarm  was  soon  discovered  to  be  a  false  one,  and  the 
people  of  both  i)arties  having,  many  of  them,  gone  out,  left 
considerable  room  upon  the  scats.  It  was  observed,  now  is  a 
favourable  time  for  him  to  get  to  the  table.  Another  scuffle 
ensued  much  more  violent  than  the  other.    I  saw  James  Heald 

and  Nathan  lleald  have  hold  of   .    He  twisted  himself 

round  in  their  arms,  and  by  great  exertion  broke  their  grasp, 
and  got  away,  and  went  up  through  the  crowd  to  the  table. 
This  sci^ffle  I  think  was  after  Ililles  had  got  up  to  the 
seat  at  the  end  of  the  table,  and  perhaps  two  or  three  feet 
from  it,  I  cannot  say  with  precision.  I  saw  him  going  up  to 
the  table,  but  did  not  see  that  he  used  any  force.  He  was 
carried  back  and  forth  across  the  passage-way  two  or  three 
times,  before  they  got  him  into  the  gallery.  They  had  him 
about  breast  high,  or  something  like  it. 

The  crowd  gathered  round  the  table  so  dense,  that  I  could 
not  discover  any  thing  in  particular,  only  Amos  E.  Kimberly 
rather  lying  upon  the  table,  in  that  way.  (Witness  shows  the 
position.)  I  heard  something  like  breaking,  and  some  one 
said,  there  goes  one  leg  of  the  table.  Directly  there  was  a 
great  cracking  with  the  table;  and  I  saw  pieces  in  the  hands  of 
several  persons.  One  piece  I  think  was  in  the  hand  of  Joseph 
Steer,  I  could  not  identify  any  other.  At  your  meetings,  is 
there  any  one  set  of  men  who  have  power  over  the  others?  I 
have  always  considered  the  society  of  Fi  iends  as  being  a  com- 
plete democracy,  all  having  equal  rights  and  privileges. 

When  a  proposition  is  made  to  the  meeting,  have  you  any 
17 


134 


Trill  I  of  Friends 


uniform  practice  upon  the  subject?  The  general  practice  is, 
that  any  Friend  feeling  a  concern  to  make  a  proposition,  is  per- 
mitted to  do  so;  Friends  then  consider  it,  and  when  the  judg- 
ment of  the  meeting  is  expressed,  the  clerk  makes  a  minute  to 
that  effect.  Is  it  considered  decorous  and  civil  to  interrupt 
when  a  person  has  laid  a  proposition  before  the  meeting?  It 
is  indecorous,  uncivil,  and  out  of  order. 

Was  there  any  thing  improper  or  unusual  in  the  motion  of 
Israel  French?  I  did  not  discover  any  thing  out  of  order,  or 
unusual,  other  than  the  novelty  of  the  occasion.  Have  you 
ever  known  a  clerk  to  proceed  with  the  reading,  to  call  the 
names  of  delegates,  or  to  do  any  other  business,  when  such  a 
proposition  Avas  before  the  meeting?  I  never  did.  I  never* 
heard  of  such  a  thing  until  this  unhappy  disturbance  com- 
menced. 

Cross-examinatio7i. — Do  you  consider  it  according  to  disci- 
pline for  a  disowned  member  to  attend  your  meetings?  I  do 
not.  Do  you  consider  it  in  order  to  make  a  proposition  in  the 
way  that  French's  proposition  was  made,  and  to  carry  it  in  the 
way  that  was  attempted  to  be  carried?  I  have  said  that  the 
proposition  was  made  to  the  meeting  in  the  usual  vvay,  and  that 
Hilles  was  proposed  in  the  usual  way;  but  as  to  their  agreeing 
to  the  proposition,  it  was  rather  quicker  than  usual.  Did  you 
ever  know  a  clerk  appointed  in  that  way?  I  have  in  the  subor- 
dinate meetings,  with  the  exception  of  the  clerks  being 
present. 

Did  you  ever  know  a  proposition  for  appointing  a  clerk  to 
be  united  with  in  that  way?  I  have  said,  I  thought  there  was 
nothing  unusual  in  uniting  with  it.  Did  you  ever  know  a  pro- 
position for  appointing  a  clerk  to  be  united  in,  and  carried  into 
execution,  in  the  way  this  was?  "What  do  you  mean?"  said  the 
witness.  I  mean,  was  it,  or  was  it  not,  according  to  the  usage 
of  the  society?  I  say  it  was  according  to  the  usage  of  society, 
taking  into  consideration  the  novelty  of  the  occasion.  You 
believe  that  it  was  according  to  the  order  of  the  society?  Yes, 
I  do;  because  the  discipline  is  silent  on  that  subject.  Have  you 
been  disowned  by  the  society?  Only  by  the  orthodox  party. 
Have  you  been  disowned  by  them?  I  have  received  a  paper 
purporting  to  have  been  issued  by  their  Monthly  Meeting. 
Did  yoi^  attend  with  the  committee?  There  was  no  commit- 
tee appointed  according  to  discipline.  I  did  not  attend  with 
the  committee,  because  I  did  not  consider  them  appointed  in 
the  order  of  the  society.  Here  witness  produced  the  testimo- 
ny of  disownment  issued  against  him,  which  was  read  by  Mr. 
Tappan,  and  is  in  the  following  words: 

*'  David  Scholfield  having  a  right  of  membership  in  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends,  but  giving  way  to  the  spirit  of  dissention, 


at  Steubeiiville,  Ohio. 


135 


hath  charged  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Indiana,  and  the  Meeting 
for  Suflerings  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  with  making  wrong  re- 
presentations in  their  testimony  and  epistles  of  advice,  8cc., 
and  also  said  he  had  read  a  book  of  sermons,  attributed  to  Elias 
Hicks,  and  saw  no  impropriety  in  the  doctrines  therein  con- 
tained; and  he  being  laboured  with,  and  it  not  having  the  de- 
sired effect,  we  disown  him  from  being  a  member  of  our 
religious  society,  until  he  becomes  sensible  of  his  misconduct, 
and  condemns  it  to  the  satisfaction  of  Friends. 

"  Signed  in,  and  by  order  of  Salem  Monthly  Meeting,  the 
19th  day  of  the  Third-month,  1828. 

Joseph  Shreve,  Clerk." 

William  Dilworth  affirmed.— Were  you  at  Ohio  Yearly  Meet- 
ing on  Second-day,  the  8th  of  September?  Yes.  Do  you 
know  who  gave  the  alarm  that  the  galleries  were  falling?  Yes, 
it  was  William  Judkins  of  Mount  Pleasant.  Were  you  near 
him?  Yes,  I  was  next  to  him.  He  warned  the  people  to 
move  away  from  about  the  door,  us  the  galleries  were  coming 
down.  He  ran  to  the  window,  and  knocked  two  panes  of  glass 
out,  and  the  people  began  to  run  down. 

Cross-examination. — How  do  you  know  that  was  the  first 
alarm  ?  It  was  the  first  I  heard.  It  was  when  they  were  try- 
ing to  put  the  clerk  to  the  table.  I  was  on  the  stairs  pretty 
near  to  the  head  of  them.  Did  Doctor  Judkins  mention  to 
you  that  the  galleries  were  coming  down?  No,  he  hallooed 
out  at  large.  Had  he  a  lath  in  his  hand?  No,  he  had  no 
lath  in  his  hand — I  did  not  see  him  have  any  thing  in  his 
hand.  What  produced  the  cracking?  I  understood  it  was  a 
board  broke,  somewhere  about  the  meeting-house. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Did  you  say  Judkins  was  stand- 
ing on  the  stairs?  He  and  I  were  sitting  on  the  stairsj  and 
many  were  leaning  over  the  railing.  He  said,  I  believe  the 
railing  will  come  down;  and  when  the  board  broke,  he  jumped 
out  of  the  window,  and  as  the  people  were  running  down  stairs, 
they  threw  me  over  the  railing. 

The  Court  adjourned  till  Monday  morning. 

Monday  morning,  Oct.  70th,  9  o'clock. 

Joseph  Updegraff  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the 
society  of  Friends?  Yes.  Did  you  attend  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing at  Mount  Pleasant?  I  did.  I  attended  the  meeting  on 
First-day  morning  as  usual.  After  the  meeting  had  gathered, 
Elias  Hicks  delivered  a  discourse  of  considerable  length. 
Immediately  after  this,  Elisha  Bates  rose,  and  observed  that 
he  believed  it  his  duty  to  inform  the  meeting,  and  particularly 
those  of  other  societies  who  were  present,  that  he  had  no  unity 
with  Elias  Hicks'  doctrines,  or  with  the  sentiments  that  he 


136 


Trial  of  F rumh 


had  delivered  there.  He  went  on  at  considerable  length, 
against  what  had  been  said.  He  said  that  Elias  was  an  intru- 
der, and  had  no  right  to  be  there. 

Pretty  soon,  Anna  Braithwaite  rose,  and  expressed  her  sen- 
timents pretty  much  to  the  same  purpose.  This  is  all  that  I 
recollect  in  relation  to  the  fore  part  of  the  day.  I  attended 
meeting  at  the  same  place  in  the  afternoon;  and  shortly  after 
the  meeting  convened,  Elisha  Dawson  rose  and  made  a  short 
speech.  Soon  after  him  Amos  Peaslee  rose,  and  had  spoken 
some  little  time,  when  there  appeared  to  be  a  whispering  at 
the  head  of  the  meeting.  They  were  holding  their  heads  to- 
gether, as  if  in  conversation  on  the  subject. 

Jonathan  Taylor  then  rose,  and  requested  him  to  take  his 
seat,  and  not  interrupt  or  take  up  the  time  of  the  meeting. 
When  he  sat  down,  Elisha  Bates  rose,  and  in  a  loud  tone  of 
voice,  ordered  him  to  sit  down — that  he  was  imposing  on  the 
meeting,  and  taking  up  the  time  of  the  meeting  improperly. 
Amos  stood  quietly,  and  a  number  of  persons  told  Elisha 
Bates  to  sit  down.  A  number  rose  up,  and  some  stepped 
towards  the  gallery,  and  Elisha  Bates  took  his  seat.  Amos 
Peaslee,  in  order  to  quiet  the  meeting,  said,  I  beseech  you, 
Friends,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  to  be  quiet;  and  proceeded 
without  any  opposition  to  the  end  of  his  discourse.  There 
was  no  further  disturbance  of  any  consequence  in  the  meeting. 

On  Second-day  morning,  I  went  to  the  meeting  about  half 
past9  o'clock.  The  east  doors,  where  we  generally  go  in,  were 
shut,  and  I  walked  round  to  the  south  side  of  the  house.  I  saw 
the  steps  were  full,  except  a  narrow  passage.  There  were 
men  standing  on  each  end  of  the  steps.  At  this  time  it  was 
raining  pretty  hard.  I  think  there  are  four  steps,  and  there 
was  a  person  on  each  end  of  every  step.  There  were  a  num- 
ber stopped,  some  at  the  bottom,  and  some  part  way  up,  of 
those  that  I  took  to  be  Friends.  I  stood,  perhaps  ten  minutes, 
thinking  what  was  best  to  be  done,  whether  to  go  in,  or  not. 

I  finally  concluded  to  go  in,  and  walked  up  without  opposi- 
tion, till  I  got  just  in  the  door.  I  saw  some  persons  a  few 
steps  from  me,  having  a  scuffle  with  the  guards,  and  one  being 
disengaged,  turned  round  and  laid  hold  of  me,  and  pushed  me 
back  a  little;  I  however  walked  on  for  perhaps  six  or  eight 
feet,  with  him  hanging  to  me,  and  he  then  let  me  go.  There 
were  very  few  then  in  the  back  part  of  the  house.  But  the 
raised  seats  were  all  filled,  and  two  or  three  near  them  were 
pretty  well  filled,  and  also  the  steps  leading  to  the  gallery. 

About  this  time  a  great  many  came  in,  and  some  went  to 
the  eastern  doors,  and  they  were  opened.  I  then  walked  out 
of  the  house,  and  found  no  guards  at  the  doors.  I  thought, 
perhaps  the  women  were  in  the  same  situation.  I  went  round, 
and  found  a  number  standing  at  the  door;  it  was  half-way 


at  Sleubenvillc,  Ohio. 


137 


open.  Some  of  the  women  said,  ihey  were  not  permitted  to 
go  in,  whilst  others  were  going  in.  I  did  not  stay  long,  but 
went  to  the  east  end  of  the  house,  and  found  that  guards  were 
stationed  at  both  doors.  A  number  were  endeavouring  to  go 
in,  and  the  guards  were  endeavouring  to  keep  them  out. 

Persons  frequently  came  up,  whom  I  then  knew  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  society;  but  they  were  prevented,  and  told  that  they 
could  not  come  in,  unless  they  forced  themselves  in.  Others 
gathered  around  them,  and  pushed  them  in. 

About  ten  o'clock,  Amos  Peaslee,  Elisha  Dawson,  and  a 
number  of  others,  proceeded  to  the  north-east  door.  I  went 
with  them:  and  when  we  came  to  the  door,  they  made  a  halt, 
and  I  was  informed  that  some  one  was  speaking  in  the  house — 
I  was  told,  it  was  Thomas  Shillitoe.  They  soon  went  in, 
but  I  was  kept  some  time  waiting.  About  this  time  a  num- 
ber collected  round  us,  and  began  to  shove,  and  I,  with  the 
rest,  was  shoved  a  considerable  distance  into  the  meeting 
house.  Every  place  was  then  full,  the  benches,  passages,  and- 
between  the  benches. 

A  short  time  after  this,  perhaps  ten  minutes,  the  meeting 
appearing  to  be  pretty  quiet,  Israel  Fr£nch  observed,  that  the 
painful  duty  devolved  on  him  of  objecting  to  the  clerk  at  the 
table.  He  said  that  Jonathan  Taylor  had,  by  recent  transac- 
tions, disqualified  himself  for  serving  the  meeting  accept- 
ably. This  proposition  was  concurred  in,  by  from  one  to  two 
hundred  at  least,  saying,  I  unite,  I  unite. 

Did  you  ever  know  a  question  carried  with  greater  unani- 
mity? I  never  heard  so  ma«y  voices  on  any  question.  Was 
this  concurrence  immediate?  The  general  voice  was  in  a  very 
short  time ;  though  a  number  of  voices  continued  to  be  heard 
uniting.  Before  this  was  gone  through  with,  I  heard  some 
person  saying,  that  the  clerk  had  better  proceed  to  open  the 
meeting.  This  was  very  soon  done,  by  Jonathan  Taylor's 
reading  an  opening  minute.  Did  he  read  it  in  the  usual  man- 
ner? I  believe  he  did.  Just  about  that  time  there  was  a  Friend 
proposed  the  name  of  David  Hillcs  for  clerk.  I  believe  it  was 
William  B.  Irish,  as  I  was  standing  not  far  from  him.  This 
proposition  was  also  united  in  by  a  great  many  voices,  and 
David  Hilles  was  requested  to  come  to  the  table  and  take  his 
seat.  Some  objections  were  made — it  was  said  the  regular 
clerk  was  at  the  table. 

Was  there  any  opposition  to  the  appointment  of  David 
Hilles  as  clerk?  There  were  two  or  three,  who  said  they 
had  a  clerk  at  the  table,  and  he  had  better  proceed.  In  sub- 
mitting questions  in  your  society,  is  it  usual  for  the  whole 
meeting  to  express  an  opinion?  As  many  as  see  proper — 
sometimes  a  large  proportion,  and  sometimes  less. 

Those  wlio  cxpi-ess  no  voice,  are  considered  as  uniting  in 


138 


Trial  of  Friends 


1 


the  measure  ?  Yes.  Is  it  universal?  It  is  so  considered  by 
me.  If  members  are  opposed,  they  must  express  their  oppo- 
sition.^"  Yes.  David  Hilles  was  frequently  requested  to  come 
to  the  table,  but  the  clerks  proceeded  to  call  the  names  of  the 
representatives,  and  they  nearly  all  ansvcered  to  their  names. 
After  they  had  answered  to  their  names,  it  was  frequently 
said,  that  David  Hilles  had  better  come  and  take  his  seat,  as 
he  had  been  appointed  and  united  with. 

I  saw  nothing  of  David  Hilles  till  he  came  near  the  stove. 
I  was  near  by,  and  there  appeared  to  be  so  much  opposition 
to  his  going  to  the  table,  I  told  him  he  had  better  make  a 
minute  on  the  stove.  A  number  of  coats  were  taken  off  and 
spread  upon  the  stove,  and  he  made  an  opening  minute  on  the 
stove,  and  read  it,  and  was  preparing  another,  when  the  alarm 
of  the  galleries'  falling  took  place. 

Just  before  the  alarm,  I  saw  persons  handing  papers  to  him, 
which  I  believed  to  be  the  reports  of  Quarterly  Meetings. 
Were  they  handed  by  the  same  person  ?  No,  by  different  per- 
sons. This  was  about  the  time  the  alarm  was  given;  though 
just  before,  there  was  something  like  the  breaking  or  splitting 
of  a  board.  It  was  said  the  galleries  were  falling,  and  it  was 
repeated  by  a  number.  It  caused  great  confusion,  and  the 
meeting  rose  pretty  generally.  They  made  their  way  to  the 
doors  and  windows  to  get  out  of  the  house.  I  was  not  much 
alarmed,  as  I  was  standing  by  the  stove,  and  not  under  the 
gallery.  I  soon  discovered  the  alarm  was  groundless.  I  look- 
ed round,  and  saw  persons  opening  the  door  back  of  the 
clerk's  table.  When  the  bars  were  taken  out,  and  the  doors 
opened,  a  number  of  persons  went  out;  the  passage  had  been 
very  much  thronged,  but  it  was  now  pretty  much  cleared.  I 
saw  that  we  could  go  up  quietly,  as  I  supposed,  and  Hilles 
took  up  the  reports,  and  I  took  the  inkstand  myself,  and  we 
walked  towards  the  steps. 

About  this  time  the  people  were  returning,  and  just  as  we 
got  to  the  bottom  of  the  stairs,  eight  or  ten  feet  from  the 
stove,  they  were  just  coming  into  the  house,  and  we  were  re- 
pulsed, and  pushed  back  several  feet.  I  can't  identify  any 
particular  persons  who  opposed.  I  myself  succeeded  in 
walking  up  the  steps,  and  when  I  got  near  the  top  step,  and 
had  hold  of  the  top  rail,  I  discovered  a  number  who  had  hold 
of  the  table,  Joseph  Steer  was  leaning  on  the  table,  with  his 
arms  around  it,  like.  Amos  E.  Kimberly  and  some  others  also 
had  hold. 

I  walked  up  into  the  gallery,  and  there  stood  observing 
what  was  going  on.  A  short  time  after  I  was  there,  I  recog- 
nised David  Hilles  at  the  foot  of  the  steps.  Some  were  urging 
him  to  go  up,  some  took  hold  and  lifted  him,  and,  as  I  was 
standing  on  the  top  scat,  I  reached  over  and  took  him  by  the 


at  Steubenv'ilk,  Ohio. 


139 


arm,  and  assisted  him  in  getting  up.  While  we  were  assisting 
in  getting  him  up,  some  persons  took  hold  of  his  legs,  and 
held  him  for  some  time,  but  we  succeeded;  and  while  he  was 
going  up,  a  man  snatched  the  papers  from  his  hands — I 
think  it  was  John  Hoyle.  As  he  was  going  up,  several  said, 
John  Hoyle  has  snatched  the  papers  out  of  his  hand.  He 
turned  round,  and,  thinking  he  had  the  reports^  I  took  hold 
of  him  and  looked  in  his  hands  and  under  his  coat,  but  did  not 
discover  them.  I  then  looked  on  the  floor  between  him  and 
Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  and  there  I  saw  the  reports.  I  picked 
them  up  and  gave  them  to  David  Hilles,  and  observed  to 
Benjamin  W.  Ladd  that  John  Hoyle  had  robbed  Hilles.  Ben- 
jamin W.  Ladd  replied  to  me,  Joseph,  thee  has  thy  redress. 
There  was  then  considerable  parleying  near  the  table.  I 
could  hear  them  say,  are  you  going  to  let  David  Hilles  have 
the  table?  While  others  said,  no,  we  will  not  give  it  up  while 
we  can  hold  it.  Some  were  pulling  one  way  and  some  another, 
and  the  table  went  to  pieces.  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  said,  that's 
enough,  that's  enough,  we'll  surrender.  He  was  standing 
close  to  me.  Another  person,  that  I  took  to  be  James  Heald, 
observed,  that  they  had  not  surrendered,  that  the  property 
belonged  to  him — he  had  the  deed  of  the  property. 

Some  person  proposed  the  propriety  of  adjourning  the 
meeting,  and  at  that  time  an  inquiry  was  made,  whether  Jona- 
than Taylor  was  in  the  house.  It  was  soon  ascertained  that 
he  was  in  the  meeting.  It  was  then  proposed  that  the  repre- 
sentatives should  be  called,  to  know  whether  they  would  unite 
in  an  adjournment.  Their  names  were  called,  and  as  many  as 
answered  to  their  names  agreed  to  it,  and,  I  believe,  most  of 
them  answered. 

David  Hilles,  about  this  time,  or  just  before,  had  read  the 
opening  minute  again;  the  meeting  having  been  in  such  con- 
fusion, we  thought  it  proper  to  read  it  again. 

About  this  time  a  Friend  got  up  on  the  bench,  I  believe  it 
was  Halliday  Jackson,  from  near  Philadelphia,  and  proposed 
that  Friends  should  come  to  some  amicable  arrangement  in 
relation  to  the  house,  so  that  both  parties  might  be  accommo- 
dated. There  was  a  reply  immediately  made  that  Halliday 
Jackson  was  an  intruder  in  that  meeting — that  he  was  not  a 
member  of  the  society.  I  think  this  was  by  Benjamin  W. 
Ladd,  but  I  am  not  positive.  Very  soon  after  this,  the  ortho- 
dox part  of  the  meeting  withdrew.  It  was  understood  that  it 
was  only  the  orthodox  party  that  had  adjourned,  and  not  the 
meeting.  However,  just  before  that,  some  one  observed,  that 
the  women  had  better  be  informed  of  the  conclusion,  and  some 
persons  were  accordingly  sent  to  inform  them;  and  the  ortho- 
dox part  of  the  women  soon  withdrew  and  left  the  house. 
When  Israel  French  made  the  proposition,  was  tljc  meeting 


140 


Trial  of  Friends 


in  a  quiet  state?  It  was  quite  silent.  Were  you  present  when 
Taylor  was  appointed  clerk  the  year  before?  I  was.  Was  he 
appointed  before  or  after  the  opening  minute  was  read?  [An- 
swer not  heard. 3  When  the  proposition  was  made  by  Israel 
French  to  appoint  another  clerk,  was  there  any  disturbance  in 
the  meeting,  till  Taylor  began  to  read  the  opening  minute?  I 
believe  not.  Did  or  did  not  the  reading  of  the  old  clerk,  occa- 
sion disturbance?  .  Immediately,  when  he  proceeded  to  read  the 
minute,  a  number  of  persons  said,  David  Hilles  has  been  ap- 
pointed clerk. 

When  a  proposition  is  offered  to  your  meeting,  is  it  the 
usual  course  to  decide  that,  before  any  other  proposition  is  of- 
fered? It  is  usual,  if  it  is  worth  discussion,  to  have  it  done,  and 
the  sense  of  the  meeting  taken  upon  the  subject,  before  any 
thing  else  is  taken  up.  Did  you  ever  know  a  meeting  to  ad- 
journ by  calling  the  representatives,  and  asking  their  consent? 
I  never  did. 

In  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio,  did  the  representatives  ever 
exercise  any  control  over  the  meeting  till  last  year?  Not  any 
more  than  other  members.  Are  they  considered  as  any  thing 
more  than  messengers  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings?  I  never 
understood  that  they  were  any  thing  other  than  common  mem- 
bers. What  is  the  particular  duty  and  office  of  representa- 
tives from  the  Quarterly  Meetings?  Their  duty  is  to  bring  up 
reports  from  the  Quarters  to  the  Yearly  Meeting;  and  to  take 
back  any  thing  that  may  concern  their  particular  Quarter  from 
the  Yearly  Meeting. 

Has  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  any  more  authority  in  your  meet- 
ing than  any  other  man?  I  should  not  think  he  would  presume 
to  take  any  more  authority.  Is  the  clerk  of  your  meeting  a 
person  having  any  more  authority  than  any  other  member? 
The  object  of  a  clerk,  I  believe,  is,  to  act  for  the  meeting,  to 
take  down  and  make  notes  of  what  transpires  in  the  meeting, 
according  to  the  understanding  of  the  meeting.  Would  it  be 
regular  for  the  clerk  to  enter  as  the  sense  of  the  meeting,  what 
was  evidently  only  the  sense  of  a  minority  of  the  meeting?  By 
no  means.  In  your  Yearly  Meeting,  do  you  acknowledge  that 
any  set  of  members  have  any  authority  over  the  others?  Not 
at  all.    All  stand  on  equal  grounds. 

Is  there  a  fixed  time  in  the  day  for  the  Yearly  Meeting  to  as- 
semble? Yes,  10  o'clock.  Who  are  allowed  to  attend  your 
Yearly  Meetings?  All  may  attend  who  belong  to  the  Yearly 
Meeting;  and  those  who  may  be  present  from  other  Yearly 
Meetings  are  at  liberty  to  attend,  and  when  they  do  attend, 
they  may  express  their  opinion;  but  they  have  no  right  in 
making  up  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  There  were  in  attend- 
ance a  number  of  persons  from  other  meetings,  perhaps  from 
20  to  50,  a  much  larger  number  than  usual.    Do  you  know  to 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


141 


which  party  they  belonged?  I  know  no  other  than  that  they 
went  off  with  the  orthodox. 

Were  you  at  Short  Creek  Monthly  Meeting  just  before  the 
Yearly  Meeting?  I  was.  Was  Thomas  Shillitoe  there?  He 
was.  Was  any  thing  said  aljout  excluding  from  the  meetings 
of  the  society  any  of  the  members?  At  the  close  of  the  meet- 
ing, there  was  something  said  by  Thomas  Shillitoe  by  way  of 
advice,  with  respect  to  shutting  the  doors  of  the  meeting 
house.  He  said  that  it  was  very  obvious,  that  a  division 
would  take  place  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  as  a  division  had  taken 
place  in  the  Quarter;  and  his  advice  to  Friends  at  the  time 
was,  that  they  should  use  all  prudent  measures,  to  lock  and  bar 
the  doors  and  windows  of  the  house,  so  that  if  the  Hicksites, 
or,  otherwise,  heretics,  should  go  off  and  leave  the  Yearly 
Meeting  house,  they  would  have  no  refuge  to  go  to  at  all;  that 
the  world  might  see  that  we  had  no  unity  with  them.  This 
was  united  with  by  some  of  the  leading  characters  and  elders 
of  the  meeting,  by  saying,  I  think  it  right  that  it  should  be 
so — I  unite  in  that  sentiment. 

Were  you  at  the  conference  at  the  school  house  in  Mount 
Pleasant,  on  Seventh-day  afternoon?  I  was.  My  object  in  go- 
ing there  was,  to  consult  what  would  be  the  best  measures  to 
pursue,  if  we  did  not  get  peaceable  admittance  into  the  house, 
and  where  we  should  hold  the  meeting.  What  reason  had  you 
to  apprehend,  that  you  would  not  gain  a  peaceable  admittance 
into  the  meeting  house?  By  the  advice  which  had  been  given 
in  the  meeting  previous,  and  by  the  measures  that  I  had  seen 
taken,  in  locking  and  barring  doors,  in  an  unusual  way  from 
what  I  had  ever  seen  before. 

W^hat  was  the  conclusion  come  to  at  that  meeting?  It  was, 
that  we  would  attend  the  Yearly  Meeting  as  usual,  and  if  no 
opposition  was  made,  we  would  go  in  quietly  as  at  other  times; 
but  if  much  opposition  was  made,  so  that  we  could  not  get  in 
without  force  and  violence,  it  was  thought  best  not  to  go  in; 
anil  then,  when  assembled,  we  could  determine  what  further 
steps  would  be  necessary  and  proper.  These  are  the  conclu- 
sions come  to  at  that  conference,  as  far  as  I  know  them. 

Cross-examination. — What  was  said  about  David  Hilles  at 
the  school  house?  I  think  it  was  said  that  David  Hilles  would 
be  a  suitable  person  for  clerk;  and  if  we  could  not  hold  our 
meeting  in  the  house  in  a  quiet  and  peaceable  way,  we  must  go 
somewhere  else — in  which  case,  David  Hilles  would  be  a  suit- 
able person. 

\  ou  have  spoken  of  David  Hilles  reading  an  opening  minute 
at  the  stove?    Yes.    It  was  about  the  time  of  the  cry  that  the 
galleries  were  falling.    He  read  the  opening  minute  about  the 
time  of  the  alarm.    You  say  that  William  B.  Irish  was  near 
18 


142 


Trial  of  F riends 


you?  He  was.  Did  yon  not  hear  him  unite  in  hia  own  nomi- 
nation?   I  did  not. 

After  the  society  was  organized,  was  there  a  report  received 
from  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  or  any  of  the  committees  ap- 
pointed by  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  believe  not.  Can  you  tell 
whether  the  Yearly  Meeting  that  was  organized,  (I  suppose  I 
must  not  say  re-organized,)  were  in  possession  of  any  of  the  re- 
cords of  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  do  not  know  that  our  repre- 
sentatives had  any  records,  other  than  the  reports.  Do  you  not 
know  of  all  the  Quarters  setting  up  a  separate  society?  No. 
You  were  not  excluded  from  the  house?  I  was  taken  hold  of, 
but  not  told  to  stay  out.  Was  it  not  according  to  the  usage  of 
society,  to  ask  a  man  to  sit  down,  if  he  had  no  right  to  preach 
there?  That  would  be  proper.  Did  you  not  know  that  Amos 
Peaslee  had  been  disowned?  No.  It  was  said  in  meeting  that 
he  was  disowned.  Did  he  reply?  He  made  no  reply.  You 
think  he  had  no  voice  in  the  decision  of  the  house — how  was 
it  with  Halliday  Jackson?  He  made  a  proposition,  and  some 
one  said  he  was  an  intruder  in  the  house;  and  it  dropt,  and 
nothing  more  was  said  at  the  time.  Now  was  not  that  as 
much  out  of  order,  as  the  conduct  of  Thomas  Shillitoe — he 
had  no  right  there,  neither  fiad  Shillitoe?  But  the  meeting 
united  with  it.  There  was  no  minute  made  of  it?  Things  that 
are  not  worth  minuting  are  never  minuted.  Does  not  the  disci- 
pline require  it?  There  was  no  minute  made  about  Shillitoe's 
advice,  and  I  consider  them  both  out  of  order;  the  clerk 
could  not  have  taken  the  subject  up,  because  it  came  from  one 
not  a  member:  the  difference  is,  one  was  acted  on,  the  other  not. 

What  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meeting  do  you  belong  to? 
To  Short  Creek.  Do  you  not  know  of  a  new  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing held  there,  without  delegates  from  the  Monthly  Meetings? 
I  know  of  no  representatives  having  been  sent  from  Monthly 
Meetings  within  that  Quarter.  Yet  you  held  a  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing? Yes.  You  say  some  persons  ordered  Elisha  Bates  to  sit 
down?  Yes,  but  I  did  not  know  any  of  the  individuals.  Do 
you  know  of  any  persons  having  been  kept  out  of  the  house 
who  had  a  right  there?  I  can't  identify  any.  I  saw  persons 
prevented,  who,  I  believe,  had  all  the  rights  they  ever  had — 
Owen  Dewees  was  one.  I  knew  them  to  be  members  then,  for 
their  faces  were  familiar  to  me.  Do  you  know  of  Owen  De- 
wees  ever  attending  a  meeting  at  Short  Creek?  I  have  heard 
he  was  disowned  there,  but  I  do  not  know  it. 

Have  representatives  any  greater  right  in  your  meetings 
than  others?  They  have  other  duties  to  perform.  They  bring 
up  the  reports  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings;  and  it  is  usually 
laid  on  them  to  name  a  clerk.  Did  you  hear  any  thing  about 
the  appointment  of  an  assistant  clerk?  I  think  I  did  hear  the 
nomination,  but  I  do  not  know  by  whom  it  was  made.  Was 


al  Sleubanville,  Ohio. 


14S 


there  any  objection  to  Amos  E.  Kimberly?  I  do  not  know  of 
any.  Was  not  the  proposition  of  Israel  French  received  in 
rather  an  unusual  manner?  There  were  a  great  many  voices; 
I  never  heard  so  many  at  once. 

After  the  main  part  had  expressed  their  approbation,  I  heard 
a  number  of  voices  distinctly  saying,  I  unite  with  it — I  unite 
with  it.  Did  you  ever  know  in  a  Quarterly  or  Yearly  Meeting 
a  proposition  agreed  to  in  the  way  that  was?  I  never  did. 
There  was  no  discussion  took  place?  There  was  no  time  given 
for  any,  for  the  clerk  went  on. 

Is  it  not  usual  for  the  clerk  to  make  a  minute,  or  is  it  consi- 
dered the  decision  of  the  meeting  till  a  minute  is  made  and 
read?  I  say  there  was  no  time  after  the  last  uniting.  How  long 
after  French  made  his  suggestion  before  David  Hilles  was  re- 
quested to  take  his  place?  Perhaps  ten  minutes  alter  the  first 
proposition.  Did  you  ever  know  a  case  when  there  was  not 
twice  that  time  given?  I  have  generally  seen  more  time.  I 
never  before  knew  a  clerk  undertake  to  read  \yhile  a  discussion 
was  going  on,  but  he  proceeded.  Was  he  called  on  to  decide? 
I  do  not  know  that  he  was.  The  assistant  clerk,  immediately 
after  the  uniting  with  David  Hilles,  went  on  to  call  the  names 
of  the  representatives.  I  never  knew  a  case  before,  in  which 
the  clerk  did  not  call  the  representatives.  Do  you  know  of  any 
of  the  orthodox  party  acting  upon  that  proposition?  They 
said  they  had  a  clerk  at  the  table,  and  that  he  had  better  pro- 
ceed, as  the  proposition  was  out  of  order. 

When  David  Hilles  was  invited  by  you  to  go  to  the  clerk*s 
table,  he  did  so?  Yes.  Why  did  David  Hilles  read  an 
opening  minute  the  second  time?  I  can't  tell  David  Hilles' 
reason.  I  know  my  reason.  It  was,  that  there  had  been  so 
much  confusion,  the  people  could  not  understand.  Was  there 
time  between  the  ceasing  of  the  clamour  after  the  proposition 
by  French,  and  the  nomination  of  David  Hilles,  to  make  a  mi- 
nute? There  was  not  time,  after  they  had  done  uniting,  for  the 
clerk  to  make  a  minute,  nor  was  there  any  demanded.  There 
was  no  decision  come  to,  then,  that  Taylor  had  disqualified 
himself?  We  always  consider  a  question  carried  when  there 
is  no  opposition.  Did  you  ever  know  the  decision  of  a  meet- 
ing before,  that  was  not  minuted,  and  even  read,  before  it  was 
esteemed  the  decision  of  the  meeting?  I  never  did.  But  we 
considered  it  carried,  as  there  was  no  objection  to  it ;  and  there 
was  no  clerk  to  minute  it  at  the  time.  Why  did  not  Amos 
E.  Kimberly  make  the  minute?  Because  he  had  no  right  to 
make  it.  It  is  his  duty  to  read  minutes  after  they  are  made. 
He  has  no  business  to  act  as  the  clerk.  He  acts  in  no  case  as 
clerk,  even  in  the  absence  of  the  clerk,  without  a  apecial  ap- 
pointment by  the  meeting. 


144 


Trial  of  Friinds 


Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Did  Peaslee  deny  being  disown- 
ed ?  (Objected  lo.) 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — Was  there  any  objection  to  the 
adjourunieiit?  I  believe  there  was  no  opposition  to  the  ortho- 
dox adjourning. 

Israel  Updegraff  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  society 
of  FriendsP  1  am.  Did  you  attend  the  late  Yearly  Meeting  at 
Mount  Pleasant?  I  did.  I  do  not  recollect  any  important 
circumstances  which  have  not  been  fully  detailed  by  other 
witnesses.  T  went  to  the  meeting  at  an  early  hour,  perhaps 
half  past  9  o'clock,  and  went  in  at  the  north-east  door,  without 
opposition  from  any  body.  I  expected  to  meet  with  opposi- 
tion, but  I  think  there  was  nobody  there  to  oppose  me.  I  turn- 
ed my  eye  towards  the  gallery,  and  discovered  one  seat  vacant, 
and  went  and  occupied  it.  I  intended,  if  possible,  to  place 
myself  in  a  conspicuous  situation,  believing  there  would  pro- 
bably be  an  attempt  to  exclude  me.  I  did  not  intend  to  be 
excluded,  except  by  physical  force. 

The  proposition  by  Israel  French,  to  appoint  a  new  clerk, 
in  consequence  of  the  disability  of  the  former  clerk,  was  pretty 
generally  united  in,  as  has  been  stated.  At  the  time  the  pro- 
position was  made  the  house  appeared  to  be  cjuiet;  and  it  was 
united  in  more  generally  than  is  usual;  and  after  this  general 
assent,  I  believe  William  B.  Irish  named  David  Hilles,  which 
nomination  was  also  very  generally  united  with.  There  were 
some  two  or  three  voices  in  opposition,  but  I  do  not  recollect 
the  nature  of  their  objections.  Several  persons  expressed  a 
wish,  that  David  Hilles  would  come  forward,  after  this  gene- 
ral approbation  of  his  appointment.  I  felt  a  good  deal  of 
anxiety  myself,  and  thought  it  a  long  time  before  any  move- 
ment \yas  made  towards  his  approaching. 

I  was  afraid,  in  consequence  of  the  organization  that  was 
known  to  exist  in  the  society,  that  he  would  not  approach  the 
table.  But  I  at  length  discovered  that  they  were  progressing 
up  the  walk,  but  it  was  some  time  before  they  got  to  the  stove. 
I  discovered  that  David  Hilles  was  coming  forward  by  the  aid 
of  some  others. 

My  seart  was  in  the  gallery,  pretty  near  to  the  north-east 
corner  of  the  house,  as  far  as  I  well  could  be,  from  the  clerk's 
table.  I  rose  and  made  my  way  towards  the  steps  leading  to 
the  clerk's  table,  and  soon  saw  that  a  number  were  organized 
upon  the  steps,  as  I  supposed,  to  prevent  the  approach  of 
Hilles  to  the  table.  I  went  up  with  a  view  to  help  him  to  get 
to  the  tal)le;  and  when  I  got  there,  I  found  four  immediately 
before  me,  one  of  whom  had  his  arm  round  the  banister,  and 
they  had  their  arms  round  each  other,  forming  a  solid  body, 
as  if  they  did  not  intend  to  be  removod  by  any  force. 

I  had  not  much  physical  force,  but  I  used  what  little  1  had, 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio 


145 


to  help  open  the  way.  I  was  fronting  them,  and  there  was  a 
shove  came  against  me,  and  pushed  me  against  a  man  that 
was  called  James  Heald.  It  shoved  him  considerably  for- 
ward, towards  the  clerk's  table.  I  had  not  proceeded  far 
forward,  till  another  shove  brought  me  back,  against  the  end  of 
the  bench,  so  that  I  could  not  extricate  myself  without  the  re- 
moval of  some  Friends.  They  appeared  unwilling  to  remove, 
and  I  got  off  with  as  little  injury  as  possible.  This  threw  me 
out  of  the  crowd,  and  I  made  use  of  no  exertion  afterwards. 
David  Hillesj  directly  after,  made  an  opening  minute  at  the 
stove. 

I  think  Jonathan  Taylor  did  not  read  an  opening  minute 
till  some  time  after  the  appointment  of  Hilles.  Not  knowing 
what  would  be  proposed,  I  had  made  some  preparation,  and 
furnished  myself  with  blank  paper,  pen  and  ink,  which  I 
thought  might  be  otherwise  unprovided.  During  the  pushing 
that  took  place,  I  lost  the  paper,  but  furnished  the  pen  and 
ink.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  furnished  a  scrap  of  paper 
from  my  pocket  book,  or  whether  somebody  else  did  it. 

I  did  not  see  the  manner  in  which  David  Hillgs  got  to  the 
gallery,  having  got  into  conversation  with  one  of  the  opposite 
party.  I  heard  the  table  break,  and  saw  occasionally  a  piece 
held  up,  but  did  not  know  the  persons  engaged.  As  to  the 
proposition  by  French,  and  the  uniting  in  it;  and  the  propo- 
sition that  David  Hilles  should  be  clerk,  and  the  uniting  in  it — 
were  they  in  the  usual  manner  of  doing  business?  I  saw  no- 
thing out  of  order;  I  have  known  such  motions  for  removing 
clerks  in  subordinate  meetings.  Did  the  clerk  proceed  to  enter 
a  minute?  He  did  not. 

Would  there  have  been  any  confusion  or  disturbance  in  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  had  it  not  been  for  the  opposition  to  David 
Hilles  as  clerk.''  I  think  it  probable  there  would  have  been;  for 
there  had  been  a  combination  entered  into,  long  before  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  to  exclude  certain  individuals.  I  presumed 
that  I  was  one  of  the  number,  ai»d  I  had  determined  not  to 
leave  the  house.  I  supposed  the  orthodox  intended  to  have 
the  house  exclusively,  judging  by  their  arbitrary  conduct  and 
despotism  for  a  long  time  previous. 

In  your  Yearly  Meeting  is  there  any  particular  body,  or 
number  of  Friends,  who  have  exclusive  privileges?  None.  I 
believe  it  to  be  a  meeting  of  perfect  equality  as  to  right.  I 
consider  it  a  perfect  democracy.  Has  the  clerk  any  authority 
other  than  to  register  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting?  He  is 
a  mere  servant  of  the  meeting,  to  make  a  minute  when  a  con- 
clusion is  come  to,  and  is  liable  to  be  removed  whenever  the 
meeting  conclude  on  it.  Were  you  ever  clerk  of  a  meeting? 
I  have  been  clerk  of  a  Monthly  Meeting.  Did  you  ever  con- 
sider, while  acting  as  clerk,  that  you  could  enter  any  thing 


146 


Trial  of  Friend* 


that  was  not  concurred  in  by  a  majority  ?  I  never  thought  that 
I  could  use  my  own  opinion,  without  expressing  it,  and  having 
it  concurred  in  by  the  meeting.  Did  you  ever  know  the  re- 
presentatives, or  delegates,  to  be  called  on  to  decide  a  question? 
I  apprehend  the  thing  was  never  thought  of  before.  Have  not 
all  propositions  for  adjournment,  8cc.  usually  been  made  to  the 
meeting  generally?  They  are  always  made  to  the  meeting. 

Who  purchased  the  ground,  and  built  the  meeting  house,  at 
Mount  Pleasant  ?  The  members  composing  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing. The  money  was  principally  raised  by  the  Quarterly  and 
Monthly  Meetings,  and  partly  by  voluntary  subscription.  The 
property  cost  more  than  was  contemplated,  and  the  sum  being 
found  insufficient,  there  was  afterwards,  in  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, atone  time,  a  voluntary  subscription  raised,  for  defraying 
some  of  the  expenses.  Were  you  a  part  proprietor?  I  con- 
tributed and  paid  money  towards  defraying  the  expenses. 

Were  those  men  who  were  attempted  to  be  excluded  as 
much  proprietors  as  those  who  attempted  to  exclude  them? 
(Objected  to.) 

Mr.  Tappan  said,  when  persons  unite  together  and  erect  a 
house,  where  they  are  not  an  incorporated  society,  they  be- 
come tenants  in  common  in  that  house,  and  they  have  a  sub- 
stantial and  equitable,  if  not  a  legal  title  in  the  property,  as 
tenants  in  common.  And  being  such  tenants,  one  party  has 
no  right  to  exclude  the  other  party.  It  appears  to  be  a  ques- 
tion directly  involved,  and  if  those  excluded  were  co-tenants 
in  common  with  those  who  attempted  to  exclude  them,  it  is 
right  to  show  it.  And  for  others  to  attempt  to  bar  the  doors, 
and  shut  them  out,  is  committing  the  first  wrong,  and  assum- 
ing that  in  which  the  law  will  not  protect  them.  I  would  con- 
tend, that  when  twelve  men  unite  in  building  a  meeting  house, 
as  twelve  proprietors,  if  eleven  should  excommunicate  the 
twelfth,  and  turn  him  out  of  the  society,  it  would  not  transfer 
his  right.  But  we  do  not  admit  that  any  attempted  to  attend 
that  meeting,  who  were  properly  excluded  by  the  discipline 
of  the  society — we  claim  that  the  parties  who  were  attempted 
to  be  excluded,  had  an  equal  right  there;  and  in  order  to  say 
that  the  evidence  is  not  proper,  you  must  take  the  question  for 
granted,  that  they  were  lawfully  excommunicated. 

The  Judge  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  pursue  the  inquiry. 

Mr.  Tappan  said,  it  was  important,  to  show  that  these  two 
individuals  were  regular  members  of  the  society  of  Friends. 
He  supposed  it  would  be  admitted  that  the  house  was  built 
by  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting;  and  that  it  was  in  possession  of 
the  members  of  that  meeting. 

Mr.  Wright  said,  the  title  to  real  estate  could  not  be  made 
out  by  parole  evidence.  That  there  was  a  legal  estate  there 
was  no  doubt,  for  that  was  shown  by  the  deeds. 


at  SteubenvilUf  Ohio. 


147 


Examination  continued. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  society 
of  Friends?  I  had  a  birthright  in  the  society,  and  have  con- 
tinued a  member  ever  since.  What  constitutes  a  Quarterly 
Meeting?  It  is  usually  composed  of  two  or  moreMonthly  Meet- 
ings. I  should  suppose  that  two  Monthly  Meetings,  at  least, 
would  be  necessary  to  constitute  a  Quarterly  Meeting.  I 
never  knew  a  Quarter  without  two.  Have  you  ever  known 
a  Quarterly  Meeting  to  lay  down  a  Monthly  Meeting  without 
its  consent?  I  have  not,  and  I  believe  it  has  not  the  power. 

At  the  time  Concord  Monthly  Meeting  was  attempted  to 
be  laid  down  by  Short  Creek  Quarter,  as  a  representative,  I 
thought  the  report  of  the  committee  so  much  out  of  order, 
that  it  was  not  considered  by  me  as  worthy  of  notice.  I  was 
at  Concord  Monthly  Meeting,  and  I  suppose,  that  probably 
one-fifth  part  assented  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Quarter,  and 
that  four-fifths  were  opposed  to  it.  Did  Concord  Monthly 
Meeting  own  the  meeting  house  and  burying  ground?  They 
were  in  possession  of  that  property.  Did  the  laying  down 
that  meeting  affect  their  subsequent  meetings?  No  further 
than  it  subjected  them  to  being  visited  by  committees,  &c. 
from  the  Monthly  Meeting  at  Short  Creek,  and  from  the 
Quarterly  Meeting. 

According  to  what  you  have  known  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  society  before  this,  it  seenas  you  have  never  known  a 
Monthly  Meeting  laid  down  without  their  consent  ?  I  never 
have.  I  never  knew  that  it  was  supposed  possible  by  any 
body,  or  that  the  idea  had  ever  been  entertained,  that  it  could 
be  done,  till  lately.  Can  a  Monthly  Meeting  disown  any  but 
their  own  members?  They  cannot.  How  do  persons  become 
members  of  a  Monthly  Meeting?  By  birthright,  or  by  appli- 
cation to  be  received,  and  being  received  on  that  application. 
Did  you  ever  know  a  man  or  woman  to  be  attached  to  a 
Monthly  Meeting  without  their  consent?  I  never  did.  It  is 
the  duty  of  a  Monthly  Meeting,  when  a  member  removes, 
without  requesting  a  certificate,  to  forward  one.  It  may  be 
with  or  without  his  consent,  and  in  that  way  they  become 
members  of  the  Monthly  Meeting  in  whose  vicinity  they  re- 
side. Has  the  Monthly  Meeting  at  Concord  a  burying  ground? 
[Objected  to.] 

Mr.  Tappan  said,  that  Short  Creek  Quarterly  Meeting  had 
assumed  the  power  of  laying  down  Concord  Monthly  Meeting, 
and  he  wished  to  show  that  this  Monthly  Meeting  was  in  pos- 
session of  real  estate  ;  and  to  show  the  nonsense  of  those 
people  in  attempting  to  lay  down  a  Monthly  Meeting,  without 
their  consent,  being  thus  in  possession  of  real  estate.  A 
meeting  house  and  burying  ground,  are,  in  some  instances,  of 
great  value,  and  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  any  other  body 


148 


Trial  of  Friends 


than  the  proprietors  of  this  real  estate,  can  control  it  in  any 
way.  I  would  say,  that  Short  Creek  Quarterly  Meeting  could 
not  lay  down  that  Monthly  Meeting,  and  transfer  it  to  Short 
Creek— though  they  may  attempt  to  transfer  the  members, 
they  cannot  transfer  the  real  estate  to  another  body.  They 
cannot  do  it—they  are  not  incorporated  bodies.  This  will  go  to 
show,  I  apprehend,  at  once,  that  it  is  a  new  and  absurd  method, 
adopted  by  the  orthodox  party  to  break  up  this  Concord 
Monthly  Meeting — that  it  cannot  be  sustained  in  a  legal  point 
of  view,  as  well  as  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  discipline 
of  the  society. 

Mr.  James  was  a  member  of  Concord  Monthly  Meeting, 
which  they  have  undertaken,  four-fifths  being  opposed,  to  lay 
down,  and  annex  to  Short  Creek  Monthly  Meeting.  It  is  of 
impoi-tance  then,  to  show,  that  it  was  by  a  species  of  leger- 
demain, that  this  Monthly  Meeting  was  laid  down  ;  that  those 
who  were  not  members  might  gain  jurisdiction  over  James,, 
and  in  this  way  disown  him.  If  we  show  that  he  was  a  pro- 
prietor of  Concord,  and  that  they  undertook  to  transfer  per- 
sons and  property  to  Short  Creek,  it  is  making  the  case 
rather  more  difficult  on  the  sideof  those  transferrers,  and  show- 
ing that  the  thing  could  not  be  so  easily  done. 

Judge  Hallock  did  not  conceive  that  he  had  any  thing  to  do 
with  this  legal  question. 

Mr.  Hubbard. — This  inquiry  is  not  to  determine  as  to  the 
legal  right  of  property,  or  in  whom  it  is  vested.  The  object 
of  calling  the  attention  of  the  court  to  this  subject,  is,  to  arrive 
at  a  more  correct  understanding  of  the  discipline;  and  as  an 
item  connected  with  the  proper  rule  of  discipline,  we  consi- 
dered it  an  important  question.  It  was  presumed,  that  all 
matters  which  would  throw  light  upon  this,  and  aid  us  in 
coming  to  a  right  conclusion,  would  be  proper  testimony. 
And  we  supposed  it  would  become  more  important,  inasmuch 
as  the  other  party  might  attempt  to  show,  that  two  or  three 
hundred  others  are  disowned  members;  or  all  those  on  whom 
a  notice  may  have  been  served,  after  this  Monthly  Meeting 
was  said  to  be  laid  down,  and  attached  to  another,  to  which 
they  owed  no  allegiance — but  from  which,  a  committee  may 
have  waited  on  them,  taken  them  into  their  power,  and  disown- 
ed them.  We  suppose  the  discipline  is  abundantly  sufficient, 
but  we  are  disposed  to  bring  all  these  matters  to  view,  be- 
cause others  think  they  have  all  the  right  and  power  practised 
by  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal. 

The  way,  in  which  Monthly  Meetings  arc  created,  is,  by 
the  applicalion  of  niemljers  to  come  in,  and  bo  participators 
in  certain  religious  rites:  and  there  are  certain  rights,  of 
which  they  expect  to  avail  themselves,  together  with  the 


ut  SleubeiivilU^  Ohio. 


149 


whole  body  of  the  society.  It  therefore  becomes  all  impor- 
tant, to  have  a  proper  understanding  of  the  rule  of  discipline. 
In  the  case  lately  tried  at  Philadelphia,  they  tried  this  kind  of 
testimony,  for  the  purpose — [Objected  to  by  the  Judge.] 

Witness  proceeds. — Is  it  customary  for  a  Monthly  Meeting 
to  hold  property  ?  I  believe  they  uniformly  hold  property,  ex- 
clusively their  own,  in  the  same  way  that  the  Yearly  Meeting 
has  property.  It  may  be  separate  from  the  Yearly  and  Quar- 
terly Meetings  both. 

Question  by  the  Judge. — Have  you  any  presiding  officer  in 
your  meetings.''  None,  except  you  call  the  clerk  such.  Sup- 
pose that  a  disorder  happens  in  your  meeting,  who  would  take 
it  upon  himself  to  see  to  it?  Every  individual  would  have  an 
equal  right.  We  consider  that  every  member  has  a  right  to 
remove  a  person  from  the  house,  if  he  is  disorderly;  but  we 
have  no  officer  for  that  purpose — we  have  no  umpire. 

When  a  motion  or  proposition  is  made  to  the  meeting,  if  I 
understand  your  rules,  there  is  no  putting  the  question?  No, 
the  clerk  sits  still,  and  the  members  express  their  opinions ;  he 
then  records  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  sense  of  the  meeting 
upon  the  subject;  I  mean,  the  opinion  of  the  majority — but  it 
is  not  often  urged,  unless  all  submit. 

Suppose  a  proposition  should  be  made  in  your  meeting, 
every  thing  being  quiet  and  nothing  unusual  attending,  and 
twenty  should  express  a  concurrence  with  the  proposition,  and 
ten,  for  reasons  which  they  should  state,  should  express  their 
non-concurrence — is  it  usual  in  such  cases,  or  would  it  not  be 
the  duty  of  the  clerk  to  obey  the  majority?  No;  the  subject  is 
still  open  for  discussion,  and  it  is  expected,  that  before  he  en- 
ters the  minute,  there  will  be  submission  by  one  party  or  the 
other.  The  usual  mode  is  by  the  submission  of  one  party  or 
the  other.  I  never  knew  a  division  called  for.  Suppose  that 
twenty  be  for,  and  ten  against  the  proposition,  and  the  clerk 
should  make  his  minute  and  read  it,  as  passed  and  acceded 
to  ?  Then  it  is  open  for  the  meeting  to  say  whether  it  is  cor- 
rect. And  if  the  ten  still  persist  in  disagreeing,  would  you 
conceive  it  the  duty  of  the  clerk  to  let  the  record  stand?  No, 
I  should  think  it  his  duty  to  erase  it,  as  not  being  carried  or 
concurred  in.  You  proceed  then  upon  the  principle  of  gene- 
ral concurrence  ?  Such  has  been  the  uniform  practice  in  the 
society,  when  there  was  no  division. 

When  a  proposition  is  made  and  discussed,  is  it  customary 
for  the  clerk  to  make  a  minute  of  the  making  of  that  proposi- 
tion, if  it  be  not  concurred  in?  He  does  nothing  about  it  till 
the  conclusion  is  come  to,  and  if  it  is  not  concurred  in,  no 
entry  is  made.  You  have  said,  that  the  proposition  of  French 
was  concurred  in,  generally?  I  meant,  that  there  was  a  more 
general  concurrence  than  is  usual. 
19 


15(J 


Trail  iij  Friends 


By  Mr.  fVright. — WluU  nuiuber  clo'you  suppose  concurred 
in  it  ?  I  cannot  say  as  to  the  number,  perhaps  more  than  a 
hundred.  I  considered  that,  though  there  was  a  great  concur- 
rence, still  there  was  a  very  great  opposition  felt  by  those 
termed  orthodox — they  no  doubt  felt  great  opposition,  though 
they  made  but  little. 

By  Mr.  Tappan. — If  a  member  of  your  Monthly  Meeting 
should  make  a  proposition  to  remove  you  as  clerk,  would  you 
think  it  decorous  to  read  a  minute,  or  any  thing  else  ?  If  he 
were  a  member  whose  opinion  was  entitled  to  any  respect,  I 
should  think  it  entirely  out  of  order.  Would  it  not  in  your 
meeting  tend  to  create  a  great  deal  of  confusion?  I  think  it 
would  meet  with  opposition,  as  being  out  of  order. 

Did  you  consider  the  proceedings  of  the  clerk  of  the  late 
Yearly  Meeting  in  order  ?  I  did  not. 

There  is  one  circumstance  which  I  would  mention,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  meeting  at  the  school  house  in  Mount  Pleasant.  I 
was  informed  that  such  an  assemblage  would  take  place,  but 
I  could  not  learn  the  object  till  the  time  of  assembling.  But 
I  went  there  with  a  direct  view,  to  form  some  combination  to 
counteract  the  measures  of  the  other  party.  I  made  no  pro- 
position openly,  but  I  expressed  my  views  to  some  individuals, 
but  I  found  no  countenancej  I  soon  learned  that  their  general 
object  was  to  be  pacific,  though  my  own  object  was  to  assert 
our  rights  and  maintain  them. 

Ry  Mr.  Wright.- — I  belong  to  Concord  Monthly.  Meeting, 
and  a  few  days  before  the  Yearly  Meeting,  had  been  served 
with  a  testimony  of  denial,  as  they  call  it.  I  have  already  ob- 
served, that  I  thought  the  proposition  by  French,  and  the 
nomination  of  Hilles  for  clerk,  were  entirely  in  order. 

I  knew  a  case,  in  the  Monthly  Meeting  to  which  I  belonged, 
of  a  similar  nature — the  appointment  of  a  clerk,  when  the  old 
one  was  present,  and  not  under  dealing;  no  objection  had  been 
made  but  what  was  made  in  that  meeting.  The  grounds  of 
objection  were  known,  but  I  do  not  know  that  they  were 
stated.  Was  there  any  objection  to  the  new  clerk's  being 
appointed  ?  Not  from  the  clerk  himself.  The  reasons  for  the 
measure  were  of  such  a  nature  as  to  be  known  to  the  members 
of  the  meeting,  though  they  were  not  given  in  meeting,  nor 
were  they  of  general  or  public  estimation,  though  contrary  to 
the  discipline  of  the  society.  It  did  not  occur  in  meeting,  but 
out  of  meeting.  Did  it  relate  to  the  tenets  or  government  of 
the  meeting?  It  was  a  circumstance  at  variance  with  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  society.  Was  it  disputing  the  authority  of  the 
meeting?  I  say  the  clerk  was  disqualified  by  circumstances 
out  of  the  house,  and  that  the  proposition  was  submitted  while 
he  was  in  the  house,  that  his  place  should  be  filled  by  another. 

As  clerk  of  the  meeting,  if  a  question  should  be  submitted 


at  Stcubenville,  Ohio. 


151 


to  the  meeting,  which  you  considered  out  of  order,  would  you 
say  it  was  so  to  the  members?  I  would.  It  would  be  in  order 
for  me,  as  clerk,  to  object  to  entering  the  minute,  if  it  were  out 
of  order.  If  you  were  called  on  to  make  a  minute  which  you 
considered  out  of  order,  would  you  make  it?  If  I  thought  the 
subject  did  not  require  a  minute  made,  I  would  forbear  till 
the  meeting  instructed  me  to  do  it.  Suppose  any  one  should 
think  it  had  been  decided,  would  he  have  a  right  to  propose 
to  the  clerk  to  enter  it?  He  would.  Suppose  a  dispute  should 
arise  as  to  what  the  proposition  was,  should  not  the  clerk  ex- 
plain it?  He  may  explain  it,  and  if  he  is  supposed  to  mistake 
the  sense  of  the  meeting,  he  may  be  corrected. 

Was  there  any  objection  to  your  entering  the  house?  There 
was  no  opposition  made?  When  I  entered,  all  the  raised  seats 
were  filled,  except  one  vacant  place.  When  you  advanced 
you  found  these  men  linked  together,  near  the  table  ?  I  did; 
and  I  used  what  physical  force  I  was  capable  of  to  open  the 
way.  I  have  stated  the  reasons — that  there  had  been  a  com- 
bination formed,  and  I  knew  the  sentiments  of  the  clerk;  but 
I  concluded  we  were  as  great  a  number,  and  I,  for  one,  was 
not  disposed  to  be  excluded. 

I  believe  there  was  no  understanding  at  the  school  house  in 
relation  to  this  subject,  although  my  object  was  to  endeavour 
to  effect  an  understanding,  and  to  move  in  concert:  for  I 
thought  we  had  lost  much  by  being  scattered,  and  not  acting 
in  concert.  I  thought  in  the  house  we  were  moving  in  con- 
cert, although  I  have  never  seen,  in  any  meeting,  so  great  a 
degree  of  excitement. 

The  voices  expressing  unity  were  more  rapid  than  usual, 
were  they  not?  From  what  has  been  said,  I  presume  it  was 
so,  although  I  did  not  mind  it  at  the  time.  Seeing  the  par- 
ties, as  you  did,  did  you  not  take  into  consideration,  that  the 
entire  orthodox  party  were  opposed?  I  am  satisfied  that  I 
should  have  acted  perhajis  as  the  clerk  did  then  at  the  table; 
for  I  acknowledge  myself  attached  to  a  party.  I  believe  there 
were  two  or  three  dissenting  voices,  but  what  the  nature  of 
their  dissent  was,  I  do  not  know. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Did  you  ever  know  this  method 
of  guarding  a  meeting  house  adopted  till  tliis  year?  I  have 
known  one  or  two  persons  appointed. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — Wherein  consisted  the  differ- 
ence? In  the  additional  number,  and  in  the  manner  of  ap- 
pointing them.  It  is,  in  my  opinion,  entirely  out  of  order  for 
subordinate  meetings  to  appoint  door-kccjicrs  to  the  Yearly 
Meetii\g.  Do  you  know  whether  it  is  the  praciii  e  in  other 
Yearly  Meetings?  I  never  have  attended  any,ox(  e|)l  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Pliiladelphia,  and  there  were  door  kccpci  s. 
Court  adjourned  till  2  o'clock. 


152 


7"i  lal  of  Friemh 


Monday,  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Israel  Updegraff  called  again.  Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan.— 
Are  you  acquainted  with  William  B.  Irish?  1  became  ac- 
quainted with  him  during  the  week  of  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
Is  he  a  member  of  the  society?  I  believe  him  to  be  so.  Are 
you  acquainted  with  William  Judkins,  of  Mount  Pleasant? 
Yes,  I  am.  To  what  party  does  he  belong  ?  I  suppose  him 
to  belong  to  the  orthodox  party,  in  consequence  of  his  being 
appointed  by  Short  Creek  Quarterly  Meeting,  to  wait  on  me 
as  a  member  of  Concord  Monthly  Meeting. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wright. — Did  you  see  any  body  in  the  mi- 
nisters' gallery  who  had  not,  by  the  rules  of  the  society,  a 
right  to  sit  there?  No,  I  think  not. 

James  Hamilton  affirmed,  for  the  defendants.^ Ave  you  a  mem- 
ber of  the  society  of  Friends  ?  I  am  considered  such,  by  at 
least  one  party:  although  I  have  been  informed  since  I  came 
here,  that  a  disownment  was  preparing  for  me.  I  had  a  birth- 
right in  the  society,  and  have  hitherto  lived  in  unity  with  my 
brethren.  Were  you  at  the  Yearly  Meeting  ?  I  was,  as  a  re- 
presentative from  New  Garden  Quarterly  Meeting.  I  was  not 
there  on  First-day,  but  arrived  on  Second-day  between  the 
hours  of  nine  and  ten  o'clock.  Being  informed  that  the  meet- 
ing house  was  ope<i,  I  went  up,  expecting  to  meet  with  some 
oljstruction,  as  I  had  understood,  previously,  that  a  number 
of  guards  were  appointed,  by  the  orthodox,  who  intended  to 
keep  out  all  such  as  were  disowned,  or  complaints  entered 
against.  I  was  one  of  that  kind  ;  a  complaint,  as  I  understood, 
having  been  made  against  me  to  our  meeting,  although  I  was 
a  representative  from  our  Quarter.  I  saw  some  of  the  guards, 
but  got  in  at  the  door.  None  obstructed  me,  and  I  walked  in 
as  usual.  The  house,  about  the  galleries,  and  near  by,  was 
pretty  well  filled.  As  1  walked  along,  looking  for  a  seat,  I 
found  the  alley  was  closed  up;  and  I  observed  a  number  upon 
the  steps,  in  front  of  the  clerk's  table.  When  I  got  down 
nearly  under  the  gallery  I  asked  a  Friend  if  there  was 
room  above,  and  we  both  went  up,  and  took  our  seats  near  the 
front  railing,  where  we  sat  for  a  considerable  time,  as  usual, 
composed  for  the  most  part.  Once  in  awhile  there  appeared 
to  be  a  little  disturbance,  as  I  supposed,  at  the  north  door. 
When  there  was  a  disturbance  of  this  kind,  I  endeavoured  to 
keep  as  still  as  possible.  After  we  had  been  there  some  time, 
an  aged  Friend  from  England  appeared  in  supplication.  Soon 
after  he  sat  down,  I  heard  a  voice  say,  that  all  the  Quarterly 
Meetings  had  forwarded  their  reports.  Then  Israel  French, 
as  I  supposed  by  the  voice,  stated,  that  in  consequence  of  the 
conduct  of  the  clerk  or  clerks,  he  felt  it  a  painful  duty  that 
devolved  on  him,  to  object  to  their  serving  the  meeting. 


■  t. 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


153 


There  wet  e  soon  a  great  number  of  voices  expressing  unity,  as 
has  been  stated  before:  I  thought  more  than  was  usual. 

About  this  time  Jonathan  Taylor  read  an  opening  minute, 
and  I  think  the  name  of  David  Hilles  was  proposed  as  clerk, 
instead  of  the  one  at  the  table,  which  was  pretty  generally 
united  in,  as  the  previous  proposition  had  been.  I  think  there 
was  some  little  opposition;  but  not  more  than  two  or  three  per- 
sons expressed  themselves  on  this  wise — that  the  clerk  had 
better  proceed;  which  he  did,  without  giving  any  further  time 
for  the  expression  of  sentiments,  or  decision  of  the  question. 
He  proceeded  to  call  the  representatives,  most  of  whom  an- 
swered. Some  from  Redstone,  I  think,  did  not.  While  they 
were  calling  the  representatives,  there  were  a  number  of  ex- 
pressions, requesting  David  Hilles  to  come  to  the  table.  I 
heard  one  voice  on  this  wise — "I  protest  against  the  clerks  at 
the  table  proceeding  any  further." 

I  looked  to  see  whether  any  body  was  coming,  and  it  seemed 
as  if  there  was  a  pretty  general  press  towards  the  passage;  and 
the  idea  struck  me,  that  the  clerk  was  somewhere  back,  and 
that  this  press  gathered  into  the  passage  to  prevent  him  from 
getting  to  the  table.  At  length  I  discovered  a  person  about 
the  stove,  that  I  expected  was  David  Hilles,  from  his  appear- 
ance ;  and  soon  after,  I  saw  that  he  had  some  papers  in  his 
hands.  I  was  rather  dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings,  and 
think  I  walked  back,  and  did  not  pay  particjular  attention  for 
some  time.  After  a  little  space,  there  appeared  not  quite  so 
much  strife,  and  I  heard  some  one  urging  him  to  go  up  to  the 
table.  But  he  appeared  disposed  to  still  the  people,  and  to 
remain  where  he  was. 

About  this  time  the  alarm  took  place;  and  there  was  a  great 
press  against  the  railing.  Some  said  there  was  danger  of  its 
coming  down.  It  was  my  idea,  that  the  noise  started  on  the 
south  side  galleries,  and  it  struck  me  that  it  was  a  boy,  and 
that  it  was  probably  done  for  mischief.  I  did  not  think  there 
was  any  danger.  I  was  in  a  situation  where  I  could  not  see 
the  door  by  the  clerk's  table,  till  I  moved  a  little.  After  a 
short  time  the  people  returned.  I  did  not  take  much  notice 
about  David  Hilles,  where  he  was.  When  they  came  in,  the 
strife  still  continued  about  the  steps  of  the  gallery,  near  the 
clerk's  table.  I  did  not  pay  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  it ;  but 
it  seemed  like  a  general  press.  I  could  not  see  any  persons 
doing  more  than  others.  One  party  was  pushing  very  hard 
towards  the  gallery,  and  the  other  as  hard  to  keep  them  down. 
That  was  about  the  impression  I  had,  when  I  was  looking 
down  at  them. 

After  some  time,  David  Hilles  appeared  to  have  gotten  into 
the  gallery.  During  part  of  the  time,  being  much  hurt  by  the 
proceedings,  I  was  walking  back  and  forth  in  the  passage. 


Trial  of  Friends 


The  table  was  pulled  back  and  forth;  one  party  appeared  dis- 
posed to  pull  it  towards  David  Hilles,  and  on  the  other  side, 
they  were  striving  to  get  it  towards  Jonathan  Taylor;  and  in 
the  strife  it  was  soon  pulled  to  pieces.  I  think  when  the  table 
was  fairly  broken  to  pieces,  and  the  pieces  were  handing  away, 
I  heard  a  voice  say,  "  it  is  enough,  I  am  willing  to  quit. "  It  was 
somewhere  about  the  table,  but  the  strife  continued  a  little 
longer.  I  heard  one  Friend  say,  "  Amos,  don't  strive  any  long- 
er; let  us  go;  it  is  enough."   It  was  Joshua  Cope. 

I  have  attended  Yearly  Meetings  before ;  but  never  saw 
doors  guarded  as  on  this  occasion.  Was  the  Yearly  Meeting 
pretty  quiet  and  still,  when  Israel  French  made  the  proposi- 
tion.'' It  was,  considering  the  circumstances  under  which  we 
met,  quite  as  quiet  as  could  be  expected.  Was  there  any  op- 
position to  Israel  French's  proposition  to  choose  a  new  clerk? 
I  do  not  recollect  that  I  heard  any  particular  opposition  to  that; 
but  to  the  appointment  of  David  Hilles,  there  were  two  or  three 
who  made  a  very  little  opposition,  merely  observing  that  the 
clerks  had  better  proceed.  I  should  have  had  no  doubt,  from 
the  voices  that  were  heard,  had  I  not  known  that  there  was  an 
opposite  party  in  the  meeting — had  I  been  a  visiting  stranger, 
I  should  have  taken  it  to  be  a  clear  expression  of  the  meeting's 
voice. 

All  that  are  members  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  have  a  right  to  go  in  and  participate  in  the 
business  of  the  meeting?  They  have.  Have  representatives 
from  the  Quarters  there,  any  more  right  than  others?  I  never 
considered  that  they  had  any  other,  further  than  to  bring  up 
and  carry  back  business;  or  any  other  than  is  stated  by  the  dis- 
cipline: to  name  a  clerk,  merely  to  do  away  the  necessity  of 
appointing  a  committee  for  that  purpose.  Do  the  representa- 
tives ever  adjourn  a  Quarterly  or  Yearly  Meeting?  I  never 
heard  of  such  a  thing.  Did  you  ever  hear  a  proposition  made 
to  the  representatives,  and  not  to  the  whole  body?  They  are 
known  only  as  common  members  in  the  meeting;  they  have  no 
more  authority  in  the  meeting  than  others. 

Have  you  ever  known  a  Monthly  Meeting  to  be  laid  down, 
without  their  consent,  except  by  these  orthodox  people?  I 
never  did  know  a  Quarter  to  lay  down  a  Monthly  Meeting.  Is 
there  any  power  in  your  society  superior  to  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing? It  is  the  supreme  power,  over  its  members.  Is  there  any 
authority  or  power  in  the  society,  to  enforce  any  discipline, 
but  that  of  the  Yearly  Meeting?  None.  What  is  the  business 
of  a  Meeting  for  Sufferings?  Nothing  further  than  is  given  in 
the  discipline.  I  never  have  been  a  member  of  that  body,  and 
know  nothing  of  its  transactions.  Have  you  in  your  Quarterly 
and  Yearly  Meetings  any  presiding  officer?   We  do  not  consi- 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


155 


der  lhat  we  have:  the  clerk  is  the  servant  of  the  meeting,  to 
record  facts,  and  has  no  more  authority  than  any  other  indi- 
vidual. ■ 

Is  it  considered  proper,  or  do  meetings  ever  exercise  the 
liberty  of  removing  one  clerk,  and  appointing  another?  I  knew 
a  circumstance  which  might  be  considered  as  such.  It  was 
the  case  in  New  Garden  Meeting,  in  Fifth-month  last.  The 
regular  clerk,  who  had  been  regularly  appointed,  and  was  pre- 
sent, about  opening  the  minutes,  was  objected  to,  as  a  com- 
plaint was  against  him,  in  the  Monthly  Meeting.  A  number 
present  said,  that  there  was  no  such  complaint.  This  created 
some  confusion,  and,  during  this  confusion,  a  Friend  was 
named  to  serve  as  clerk;  but  the  confusion  continued  to  exist. 
Some  said  there  was  a  complaint,  and  some  said  not ;  and  he 
was  urged  strenuously  by  some  to  proceed.  There  was  then 
a  proposition  made  by  Benjamin  W.  I^add,  that  it  was  not  the 
clerk,  nor  the  records,  that  constituted  the  Quarterly  Meeting, 
but  the  representatives  and  the  reports  ;  and  if  the  representa- 
tives were  there,  with  the  reports,  they  could  hold  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting,  if  no  others  were  present.  And  he  proposed 
that  they  should  withdraw  and  name  a  clerk.  There  appeared 
an  evident  division.  One  party  were  in  favour,  and  the  other 
were  opposed  to  it.  Those  whom  we  supposed  to  be  represen- 
tatives, although  their  names  had  been  called,  went  out,  and 
when  they  came  in,  said  they  had  agreed  on  a  Friend  ;  he  had 
been  previously  named.  He  approached  the  table,  but  the 
other  being  at  it,  he  said  it  was  of  no  great  consequence — he 
could  withdraw  to  the  other  side.  He  stepped  to  the  other 
side,  and  very  soon  commenced  reading  an  opening  minute. 
The  clerk,  as  I  might  say,  on  our  «ide,  was  proceeding  with  the 
business ;  and  their  clerk  proceeded — both  were  sometimes 
proceeding  at  the  same  time,  and  two  or  three  speaking. 

I  rose  and  observed,  if  the  two  parties  were  determined  to 
proceed  in  their  own  way,  it  would  be  better  for  one  party  to 
do  their  business  first.  Another  proposed  that  our  clerk 
should  be  silent,  and  then,  when  they  were  through,  we  could 
do  our  business,  which  was  done. 

Cross-examination. — What  number  withdrew  from  the  meet- 
ing ?  I  could  not  tell,  but  the  larger  number  withdrew  of  the 
men.  Was  your  name  called  by  Jonathan  Taylor  at  the  Yearly 
Meeting?  It  was  not.  I  was  not  called  on  for  adjourning 
the  meeting.  It  had  been  called  before  the  adjournment,  by 
David  Hilles.  There  was  an  understanding  that  your  party 
should  keep  still,  till  the  others  had  adjourned?  David  Hilles 
was  about  proceeding,  when  Elisha  Bates  said,  be  still  a  little 
time,  and  we  will  adjourn  and  leave  you.  How  did  you  know 
that  that  was  the  understanding?  I  understood  it,  because  it 
was  suggested,  and  no  objection  made.    When  I  went  to  the 


156 


Trial  of  Friends 


Yearly  Meeting,  the  general  expectation  was,  that  there 
would  be  a  division,  and  as  a  representative  on  one  side,  I 
meant,  if  there  was  no  obstruction,  to  get  in:  but  if  exertions 
were  required,  I  should  use  none.  Why  did  you  not  offer  the 
report  to  the  old  Yearly  Meeting?  was  it  because  you  belong- 
ed to  the  new  line?  I  belong  to  what  is  son^etimes  called  the 
Hicksitc  party.  Did  you  ever  attend  a  Yearly  or  Quarterly 
Meeting,  where  a  question  was  put  and  acted  upon  as  that 
was,  in  relation  to  David  Hilles  ?  I  have  been  at  meetings 
whei'e  propositions  were  made,  and  acted  on  in  a  similar  way, 
I  think  very  little  different.  I  think,  in  the  case  of  our  new 
Monthly  Meeting,  of  course  there  was  no  new  clerk;  but  after 
the  meeting  was  assembled,  a  proposition  was  made  for  a 
Friend  to  go  to  the  table,  and  serve  the  meeting.  Do  you  say, 
that  the  uniting  was  in  the  same  rapid  succession?  Not  alto- 
gether, because  there  were  not  so  many  present.  I  don't 
think  it  was  as  rapid.  Was  it  twice  as  rapid  at  the  Yearly 
Meeting?  I  think  it  was  more  than  twice  as  rapid. 

Did  you  ever  before  know  several  to  speak  at  orice?  In  our 
Monthly  Meeting,  where  there  has  been  considerable  excite- 
ment, I  have  known  as  many  as  three  speak  at  once. 

There  was  a  Monthly  Meeting  in  Baltimore,  laid  down  by 
Baltimore  Quarterly  Meeting,  by  the  direction  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting.  There  was  a  difference  between  the  Monthly  Meet- 
ings, as  to  property.  One  meeting  considered  that  its  rights 
were  infringed  upon  by  the  other,  and  there  was  a  complaint 
carried  up  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  for  its  decision.  The 
Yearly  Meeting  directed,  that  the  meeting  complained  of, 
should'place  the  ground  in  the  same  situation  that  it  stood  in, 
previous  to  the  act  complained  of;  and  in  case  of  failing  to  do 
so,  ordered  the  Quarterly  Meeting  to  lay  it  down.  It  is  pre- 
sumed that  the  Monthly  Meeting  did  not  consent?  I  believe  it 
did  not  hold  to  its  rights. 

I  was  present  at  two  or  three  sessions  of  the  Baltimore 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  at  one  of  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  when 
that  subject  was  under  consideration;  but  was  not  present 
when  the  Yearly  Meeting  ordered  it  to  be  laid  down,  nor  in 
the  Quarterly  Meeting  when  it  was  laid  down.  The  dispute 
was  about  a  burying  ground.  I  was  a  member  of  one  of  the 
Monthly  Meetings  at  the  time,  and  for  a  considerable  time  after- 
wards, but  removed  to  this  state  before  it  was  laid  down.  The 
Quarterly  Meeting  acted  so  far,  as  to  appoint  a  committee  to 
take  the  subject  under  consideration,  and  the  committee  re- 
ported, that  a  decision  could  be  had  to  better  satisfaction  from 
the  Yearly  Meeting,  than  from  the  Quarter.  Did  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting  unite  in  the  report?  and  did  they  direct  that 
the  advice  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  should  be  requested  ?  (An- 
swer not  heard.)    The  Yearly  Meeting  gave  a  decision,  and 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


the  judgment  was  handed  down  through  the  Quarterly  to  the 
Monthly  Meeting.  The  substance  of  their  decision  was,  that 
the  Monthly  Meetings  had  equal  rights.  They  persisted  in  not 
complying  with  the  decision  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  then 
the  Yearly  Meeting  ordered  the  Monthly  Meeting  to  be  laid 
down. 

Did  you  ever  know  a  clerk  appointed  or  elected  in  a  Quar- 
terly or  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  in  the  way  that  David 
Hilles  was  ?  I  know  of  no  case  nearer  than  that  of  Jonathan 
Taylor,  the  preceding  year.  After  a  clerk  had  been  appoint- 
ed in  the  usual  way,  named  by  the  representatives,  and  agreed 
to  by  the  Yearly  Meeting,  he  was  indisposed,  and  did  not 
come  to  the  meeting;  it  was  proposed,  as  the  clerk  was  not 
present,  that  Jonathan  Taylor  should  be  appointed  in  his  room, 
and  he  took  his  seat.  I  cannot  state  what  the  minute  set 
forth. 

There  were  no  reports  from  the  Hicksite  party,  delivered 
to  Taylor?  I  believe  not.  David  Hilles  called  the  represen- 
tatives from  three  Quarters,  which  might  be  called  Hicksite, 
and  those  from  Redstone  Quarter,  which  was  not  divided. 

Questioned  by.  Mr.  Tappan. — You  have  mentioned  what  Ben- 
jamin W.  Ladd  had  to  say  in  your  Quarterly  Meeting — 
was  he  a  member  of  that  Quarterly  Meeting  ?  He  was  not. 
In  what  character  did  he  appear?  I  do  not  recollect  that  he 
offered  any  credentials  to  distinguish  him  from  any  other 
member.  At  one  of  our  Quarters,  there  was  a  committee  at- 
tending, but  I  did  not  understand  that  he  appeared  there,  as 
any  thing  more  than  Benjamin  W.  Ladd. 

John  Cleaver  affirmed. — I  went  to  the  meeting  house  about 
9  o'clock,  after  seeing  a  number  of  people  gathering  about  the 
house.  The  doors  were  all  fast,  except  one,  through  which 
they  were  passing.  I  attempted  to  go  in,  and  was  stopped.  I 
asked  the  reason  why  I  should  not  go  in,  as  it  was  raining 
very  hard,  and  I  wished  to  go  in.  They  said  the  Indian  com- 
mittee were  sitting.  I  saw  a  number  going  in,  who  were  not 
of  that  committee:  and  gave  them  to  understand  this.  They 
then  said,  that  the  representatives  were  also  going  in.  I 
finally  told  them  that  there  were  members  going  in,  who  were 
not  members  of  that  committee,  nor  representatives.  They 
then  informed  me  that  it  was  a  conference,  and  they  wished 
not  to  be  disturbed:  but  that  the  doors  would  be  open  before 
ten.  As  near  as  I  can  recollect,  about  half  past  9,  I  went 
again,  and  proclamation  was  made,  at  the  south-east  door, 
that  the  doors  were  open,  and  all  who  had  a  right  to  go  in, 
might  go  in;  there  were  perhaps  ten  or  fourteen  standing 
about  the  door.  There  was  one  on  each  end  of  each  step,  and 
as  many  as  three  upon  the  door-sill,  sheltering  themselves 
from  the  rain.  I  then  attempted  to  go  in,  and  they  asked  me 
20 


158 


Trial  of  Friends 


if  I  was  a  member.  I  replied,  that  I  was.  They  gave  way 
then,  and  I  went  up  towards  the  stapa.  I  wa3  again  interro- 
gated whether  I  .vas  a  member:  but  I  made  no  reply.  Isaac 
Walker,  a  member  of  the  meeting  from  which  I  came,  called 
out,  and  said,  "  he  is  a  member;  let  him  go  in."  They  gave 
way,  and  I  moved  up  till  I  came  to  the  door-sill.  There  were 
three  men  on  the  door-sill,  and  two  of  them,  when  I  came  to 
the  step,  collared  me,  and  ordered  me  to  stop,  and  at  the  same 
time  ordered  the  door  to  be  shut,  which  was  then  but  half-way 
open.  As  I  had  been  a  considerable  time  in  the  rain,  and 
was  wet  and  uncomfortable,  I  took  one  under  each  arm,  and 
before  the  door  was  bolted,  took  them  in.  In  the  bustle,  they 
knocked  my  hat  off,  and  trampled  it  in  the  mud  considerably. 
When  I  got  in,  they  resumed  their  stand  about  the  door.  I 
heard  Isaac  Walker  call  out  to  one  of  the  guards  to  let  me 
go.  He  was  coming  up  the  steps.  I  looked  round,  and  Ed- 
ward Carroll,  from  New  Lisbon,  was  in  a  scuffle  with  them. 
He  had  his  great  coat  on,  and  two  or  three,  who  had  hold 
of  him,  had  nearly  pulled  it  off  his  shoulders:  but  he  extri- 
cated himself,  and  kept  on.  I  have  been  informed  that  he  Was 
a  member. 

Did  you  ever  see  a  house  guarded  like  that?  I  never  did.  I 
was  born  a  member  of  the  society,  and  have  been  a  member 
of  Redstone  Quarter  for  about  fourteen  years.  My  right  of 
membership  was  never  called  in  question  by  either  party,  for 
any  misconduct  whatever. 

The  Judge  tbought  it  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  species  of 
inquiry  any  further. 

Mr.  Tappan. — We  think  it  important  to  establish,  that  at 
the  Yearly  Meeting,  each  member  has  equal  rights  and  privi- 
legesf  that  they  all  stand  on  a  level,  a  pure  democracy.  •  We 
consider  this  point  a  taaterial  one  in  the  defence;  because  we 
believe  the  statute  law  does  not  extend  to  any  altercation  be- 
tween the  members  of  a  religious  society,  as  to  the  manner  of 
conducting  their  business.  If  we  establish  the  position,  that 
the  persons  complained  of,  were  members  of  the  society,  and 
were  entitled  to  equal  rights  with  any  other  members  of  that 
society,  and  to  equal  consideration,  respect,  and  regard,  we 
make  it  a  case  where  the  statute  law  does  not  reach  them,  for 
*ny  altercation  or  difference  between  themselves  and  other 
niembers  of  the  society,  with  regard  to  the  transaction  of  their 
business.  And  it  is  with  that  view  of  the  subject,  that  we 
wish  to  establish  clearly  and  indisputably,  the  right,  to  be 
there,  to  make  motions,  to  declare  their  assent  to,  or  dissent 
from,  any  proposition  in  the  meeting;  and  that  there  was  no 
memb.er,  or  number  of  members,  or  individuals,  who  had  a 
right  to  control  any  of  these  defendants,  or  either  of  them. 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


1S9 


The  Judge  thought  there  was  evidence  enough  upon  the  sub- 
ject, and  that  the  discipline  of  the  society  must  settle  the 
question. 

Mr.  Tappan  proceeded  with  the  examination  of  the  vritness. 
A  meeting  has  been  spoken  of  as  having  been  held  in  a  barn? 
Yes:  the  meeting  house  had  been  burnt,  and  there  was  no 
convenient  place  to  hold  a  meeting;  and  it  was  thought  it 
would  be  most  convenient  to  hold  it  in  a  barn.  It  was  a  pub- 
lic meeting  for  worship.  I  am  personally  acquainted  with 
William  B.  Irish.  He  is  considered  to  be  a  member  of  Red- 
stone Quarterly  Meeting. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright.— W&s  Elias  Hicks  at  the  barnP 
He  was  not.  Was  Amos  Peaslee  there?  Yes.  Was  there  not 
a  conference  after  the  close  of  the  meeting  ?  A  number  of 
Friends  stopped.  Were  there  any  letters  read  there  ?  I  be- 
lieve not.  Was  there  a  letter  read  there  froril  any  quarter  ? 
Yes,  I  believe  there  was  a  letter  read.  Who  was  it  from?  I 
believe  it  was  from  Israel  French.  Was  it,  or  was  it  not,  to 
invite  a  conference,  to  determine  how  you  should  conduct 
your  Hicksite  affairs  ?  I  do  not  think  it  was.  I  think  It  wa« 
not  to  call  a  conference  for  any  thing.  It  was  a  narration  of 
occurrences,  that  had  transpired  at  Mount  Pleasant.  Were 
there  any  delegates  appointed  there,  to  go  to  Plainfield?  There 
were,  at  another  place,  some  Friends  nominated  to  go  to 
Plainfield,  to  advise  upon  measures  in  relation  to  the  disorder- 
ed state  of  the  society.  "V^^^  David  Hilles  there  ?  He  was 
there.  He  belongs  to  the  same  Monthly  Meeting,  though  not 
to  the  same  Preparative  Meeting,  that  I  do.  I  have  under- 
stood that  David  went  to  Plainfield. 

Rhodes  Dilworth  affirmed. — I  went  to  the  m«eting  house 
somewhere  about  ten  o'clock.  I  went  to  the  north-east  door, 
and  as  I  was  about  to  to  go  in,  John  Hoyle,  who  was  standing 
near  the  door,  said,  "  Rhodes  Dilworth,  thee  is  not  permitted 
in  here:"  but  I  went  in. 

Samuel  Berry  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  society 
of  Friends  ?  Yes,  I  am  a  member.  I  was  at  Mount  Pleasant 
on  Second-day  morning.  I  got  there  about  ten  o'clock,  or 
near  that  time.  I  walked  up  to  the  door,  and  there  was  a 
man  whom  I  took  to  be  Isaac  Jaekson.  He  told  me,  "  Samuel 
Berry,  thee  has  no  right  to  come  into  this  house."  There  were 
a  great  many  coming  up,  and  pushing  forward.  I  twrned 
away,  and.  went  to  another  door.  There  were  several  guards 
there.  The  door  was  full  of  men.  They  told  me  there  was 
no  room  in  the  house.  The  one  who  spoke,  I  took  to  be  one 
who  holds  to  the  orthodox  side  of  the  question.  T  did  not  get 
in  till  several  were  pushed  in,  and  after  the  guards  had  left 
the  doors.    At  the  time,  I  knew  of  no  complaint  against  me, 


160 


Trial  of  Friendt 


I  wa»  at  the  door  when  there  was  a  nomination  of  clerk,  but 
I  cannot  state  any  thing  in  particular  about  it. 

Pretty  soon  I  got  in,  and  pushed  along  in  the  crowd.  I 
went  quietly  a  considerable  distance  up  the  main  ile,  from  the 
south  door.  But  when  the  alarm  took  place  they  crowded 
me  out  door  again.  I  was  not  much  alarmed;  all  parties  were 
endeavouring  to  get  out. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — Are  you  a  Hicksite?  They  have 
called  me  one  ever  since  the  name  originated  in  the  society. 
I  was  not  alarmed,  and  not  scared.  I  did  not  think  the  hou«e 
was  going  to  fall  on  me. 

Nathan  Galbreath  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  society 
of  Friends?  I  am.  I  was  present  at  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  at 
the  time  Israel  French  made  a  proposition  for  a  new  clerk. 
I  was  a  representative  appointed  by  New  Garden  Quarterly 
Meeting.  The  meeting  was  as  still  at  the  time  when  the 
proposition  was  made,  as  at  any  time  before  or  after;  and  it 
was  sanctioned  by  a  great  number  of  voices,  as  many  as  I  ever 
heard  on  a  similar  occasion,  or  on  any  occasion.  I  consider- 
ed that  it  was  very  decided,  that  the  voice  of  the  meeting  was 
in  favour  of  appointing  a  new  clerk. 

Did  you  hear  the  proposition  to  appoint  David  Hilles  ?  I  did, 
and  it  was  also  sanctioned  by  a  great  number  of  voices.  What 
prevented  his  taking  his  seat  as  clerk?  It  was  called  out  for 
him  to  come  to  the  table.  I  could  not  see  him,  but  I  supposed 
he  was  prevented  by  the  crowd  in  the  passage  where  he  was 
coming  from.  I  could  tell  nothing,  only  by  the  crowd  moving 
back  and  forth.  James  Heald  told  him  several  times,  "  don't 
come  here,"  (putting  his  hands  out)  "I  am  in  possession  of 
this  property."  Pretty  soon  after  this,  the  crowd  became  so 
dense  that  I  could  not  see,  for  some  were  upon  the  benches, 
and  some  upon  the  backs  of  the  benches,  so  close  that  I  could 
not  see.  The  old  clerk,  pretty  soon  after  the  proposition  for 
a  new  clerk,  commenced  reading.  I  was  with  my  back  to- 
ward him.  I  think  he  began  about  the  latter  part  of  the 
assenting  to  the  appointment  of  David  Hilles  as  clerk.  I  con- 
sidered that  it  disturbed  the  meeting,  as  it  always  does  when 
a  proposition  is  offered  before  another  is  decided.  Did  you 
ever  know  a  clerk,  previous  to  this,  to  go  on  reading,  while 
there  was  a  proposition  before  the  meeting?  It  may  be  possi- 
ble that  it  was  the  case  in  New  Garden,  where  I  was,  and 
where  the  representatives  to  the  Quarter  reported  another 
clerk,  and  the  orthodox  assented  to  it;  otherwise,  I  believe,  I 
never  saw  the  like. 

Would  there  probably  have  been  any  confusion,  if  Mr.  Tay- 
lor had  performed  the  regular  duties  of  his  office,  according 
to  the  ordftr  of  the  society?  I  do  not  think  there  would.  Are 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


161 


you  an  elder  in  the  meeting  to  which  you  belong?  I  am  an 
elder,  and  have  been  a  member  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings. 

Cross-examination. — Are  you  not  under  dealings?  It  would 
be  unprecedented,  if  a  complaint  has  been  offered  to  any  meet- 
ing except  my  own  ;  and  there  never  has  been  a  complaint 
against  me  in  any  Monthly  or  Preparative  Meeting  to  which  I 
have  belonged.  The  orthodox  have  left  the  New  Garden 
Quarterly  and  Monthly  Meetings,  and  they  may  have  disown- 
ed me — they  say  they  have,  but  I  have  the  records  of  the 
Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meetings  with  me  in'  this  building. 
The  overseers  came  to  me  before,  and  made  some  opposition, 
and  said  I  had  told  other  members  to  sit  down,  and  let  the 
meeting  act  on  its  own  responsibility.  They  asked  me,  if  I 
believed  in  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks?  I  told  them,  if 
they  would  cite  any  part  of  the  doctrines,  I  could  then  answer 
them.  I  asked  then,  of  them,  what  particular  part  of  his 
doctrines  they  found  fault  with,  as  they  were  now  tested  by 
his  printed  sermons  and  letters.  They  said,  they  had  heard 
certain  things.  I  asked  them  to  show  me  what  they  were; 
as  there  were  twelve  of  his  sermons  then  lying  on  my  mantel- 
piece. They  could  not  refer  to  any  thing,  but  remarked, 
that  he  had  said,  the  Scriptures  were  a  most  mischievous 
thing.  They  parted  with  me,  saying  they  were  entirely 
satisfied.  A  few  days  after,  one  of  them  met  me,  and  told 
me  that  a  complaint  would  go  against  me;  but  it  never  has 
come  to  the  Preparative,  Monthly,  or  any  other  meeting  for 
discipline. 

Was  the  Preparative  Meeting  then  divided?  No.  When  it 
did  separate,  these  men  went  to  the  orthodox  meeting?  They 
went  into  the  old  house,  and  left  us.  They  visited  you,  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  mode  on  such  occasions,  I  suppose  ?  They 
had  no  complaint.  I  showed  them  the  discipline,  and  request- 
ed them  to  show  me  any  thing  that  I  had  done,  contrary  to 
the  order  of  the  society  ;  but  they  did  not  show  me  any  thing. 
How  was  that  Quarter  divided,  as  to  numbers?  I  think  it  was 
about  equally  divided; — when  they  separated,  the  most  nume- 
rous party  went  off,  because  they  had  a  great  many  visiters. 
I  think  our  meetings  would  be  found  about  equal.  Setting 
aside  the  visiting  Friends,  I  do  not  think  the  most  numerous 
party  did  go  off.  I  think  there  were  about  one  hundred  in  at- 
tendance from  other  meetings;  and  throwing  them  out,  we 
were  about  equally  divided. 

HoiW  many  Monthly  Meetings  belong  to  your  Quarter  ? 
Three.  Are  all  those  meetings  divided?  I  think  not  all.  To 
whom  did  those  meetings  report?  Our  meeting  reported  to 
Friends — the  others,  having  orthodox  clerks,  went  the  other 
way.  Which  way  did  the  representatives  go,  from  New  Gar- 
den Quarter?  The  representatives  went  with  the  clerks.  The 


162 


Trial  of  Friends 


representatives  to  New  Garden  Quarterly  Meeting,  went  with 
the  orthodox?  The  representatives  of  New  Garden  Monthly 
to  New  Garden  Quarterly  Meeting  did  not,  but  the  other  two, 
Carmel  and  Sandy  Spring,  retained  their  reports,  and  would 
not  give  them  up  to  me;  therefore,  I  could  say  nothing  what 
they  would  do;  and  the  orthodox  part  of  New  Garden  Month- 
ly, refused  to  give  up  their  reports.  Then  two  of  the  Monthly, 
and  the  orthodox  part  of  New  Garden  Monthly  Meeting,  re- 
ported to  the  orthodox?  Yes. 

James  Tolerton  affirmed.— Were  you  at  the  Yearly  Meeting 
at  Mount  Pleasant,  when  French  proposed  the  appointment 
of  a  new  clerk?  Yes.  Was  the  meeting  quiet  ?  I  considered 
it  as  quiet  as  common.  What  was  done  with  that  proposi- 
tion? It  was  united  with  by  a  large  majority.  Was  there  any 
opposition?  I  think  there  were  two  dissenting  voices:  one 
said  they  had  a  clerk,  and  the  other,  that  the  clerk  had  better 
proceed  with  the  business.  I  think  it  was  after  Hilles  was 
nominated.  How  did  the  meeting  receive  that  nomination? 
I  think  they  acceded  to  it,  by  as  large  a  majority  as  I  ever 
heard  in  a  meeting:  by  perhaps  150  or  200  voices  assenting 
to  it. 

When  a  proposition  is  made,  is  it  not  usual  to  decide  it,  be- 
fore you  proceed  to  other  business?  I  understand  it  to  be  the 
orderly  method  of  proceeding -—that  it  should  be  decided  be- 
fore any  thing  else  is  entered  upon.  Had  they  done  uniting, 
before  Taylor  commenced  reading?  I  think  it  was  while  they 
were  expressing  their  unity,  that  he  opened  the  meeting.  The 
clerk,  after  reading  a  minute,  read  over  the  names  of  the  re- 
presentatives, and  the  reports,  till  he  came  to  the  Redstone 
report,  when  Amos  E.  Kimberly  remarked,  that  that  report 
was  not  signed  by  the  clerk,  but  by  the  assistant.  I  think 
their  reading  created  part  of  the  disorder.  If  that  had  not 
taken  place,  the  disorder,  I  think,  would  not  have  been  so 
great.  If  the  old  clerk  had  given  way  to  the  meeting,  to  let 
the  question  be  decided,  I  think  the  confusion  would  have  been 
less.  If  I  understand,  you  say  the  conduct  of  the  clerk  was 
out  of  order?  I  think  it  would  not  have  been  orderly  for  me  to 
do  it.  Has  the  clerk  of  a  Yearly  Meeting  any  more  power 
than  others?  No  more.  He  may  give  his  voice,  and  then 
leave  it,  or  I  may  give  my  voice,  and  leave  it  for  the  decision 
of  the  meeting.    He  has  no  more  voice  than  others. 

I  am  clerk  to  the  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meetings  of  Salem, 
and  was  a  representative  from  that  Quarter:  and  had  the  re- 
ports in  my  pocket,  when  Taylor  called  the  representatives. 
The  Friends'  representatives  did  not  answer  to  him. 

Cross-examined. — You  belonged  to  the  Monthly  and  Quar- 
terly Meetings  of  Salem  before  the  separation?  Yes:  but  I  got 
uneasy  with  the  conduct,  and  ti'ansferred  my  right  to  New 


I 


at  Steubeavilk,  Ohio. 


163 


Garden.  Did  you  take  a  certificate  of  your  membership? 
No.  Did  they  ask  any?  No.  But  I  was  certificated  back 
to  our  Monthly  Meeting.  Did  you  not  set  up  a  new  Monthly 
Meeting?  A  separation  took  place,  and  I  Avas  certificated 
back.  To  those  that  continued  the  old  Monthly  Meeting? 
I  considered  that  we  constituted  the  old  Monthly  Meeting. 
Was  not  the  old  Monthly  Meeting  in  being?  Yes;  I  say 
it  was — we  considered  that  we  continued  the  old  Monthly 
Meeting. 

Did  you  join  the  same  meeting  that  you  left?  Yes,  if  Friends 
constitute  the  meeting — the  house  does  not  constitute  the 
meeting.  The  same  Friends  that  I  was  united  to,  before  I 
went  away,  I  was  united  to  when  I  came  back.  Did  you  re- 
tnrn  and  unite  with  the  same  brethren?  Yes. 

[A  fev,'  other  questions  and  answers  passed,  but  they  were 
so  rapid  and  indistinct,  that  we  were  at  the  time  unable  to 
understand,  or  record  them,  with  accuracy — It  is  believed, 
however,  their  omission  is  not  material.] 

Abraham  Dilworth  affirmed. — Were  you  present  at  the  Yearly 
Meeting,  at  the  time  Israel  French  proposed  the  appointment 
of  a  new  clerk?  I  was.  Was  the  meeting  quiet?  It  was  as 
quiet  as  usual.  How  was  that  proposition  received  and  treat- 
ed by  the  meeting?  W^hen  he  made  the  proposition,  a  great 
number  of  voices  united  with  it  as  their  sentiment.  How  was 
it  with  the  nomination  of  Hilles-  for  clerk?  Soon  after  the  pro- 
position to  change  the  clerk  was  united  in,  W^illiam  B.  Irish 
mentioned  the  name  of  David  Hilles,  and  it  was  sanctioned  by 
a  great  number  of  voices,  and  in  the  same  instant  the  assistant 
clerk  was  named  and  sanctioned,  in  the  same  way.  About  this 
time,  or  before,  Jonathan  Taylor  got  up,  and  read,  as  I  suppos- 
ed, an  opening  minute.  He  began  to  call  over  the  representa- 
tives, beginning  at  Short  Creek,  although  it  has  been  usual 
heretofore,  to  call  from  Redstone  first.  After  going  on  some 
time,  it  was  observed  that  they  had  a  report  from  Redstone, 
signed  by  the  assistant  clerk;  and  some  one  observed,  that  the 
representatives  did  not  answer  to  that,  as  it  was  not  signed  by 
the  clerk.  Some  were  calling  out  for  David  Hilles  to  come  to 
the  table;  and  some  voices  were  heard,  saying,  they  would 
not  have  a  clerk  that  would  not  serve  the  meeting. 

After  a  while,  I  saw  a  company,  or  several  persons,  pro- 
gressing up  the  passage  along  the  middle  of  the  meeting;  and 
by  this  time  the  crowd  was  considerable.  As  a  number  had 
got  on  the  benches,  I  stepped  up  on  a  bench,  and  observed,  as 
David  Hilles  was  coming  forward,  some  were  standing  in  front 
of  the  table,  and  some  came' forward  towards  the  table  in  the 
gallery.  As  the  crowd  in  front  seemed  to  climb  still  higher, 
I  got  upon  the  tops  of  the  benches,  with  one  foot  on  each,  so 
that  I  could  see  pretty  distinctly.    There  was  some  pushing 


164 


Trial  of  Friends 


about  the  table,  but  I  did  not  obeerve  much  till  I  saw  Jacob 
Richards  scrambling  over  the  shoulders  of  the  people.  Some 
pushed  him  down;  others  were  stooping,  whether  to  help  him 
up  or  down,  I  could  not  tell;  but  it  seems  they  were  bearing 
him  down.  I  saw  him  have  hold  of  the  bench,  and  pushing; 
and  I  heard  a  crack  distinctly,  coming  from  the  back  of  the 
bench,  and  in  half  a  minute  there  was  a  general  alarm,  that 
the  galleries  were  coming  down.  It  was  first  said  that  the 
gallery  over  the  preachers  was  coming  down;  and  they  ap- 
peared to  be  retreating  from  that  part  of  the  house.  Directly 
it  was  observed,  that  the  galleries  were  falling ;  and  as  I  looked 
round,  under  the  youth's  gallery,  they  were  aiming  for  the 
doors.  I  hallooed  as  loud  as  I  could,  that  it  was  a  false  alarm; 
but  still  they  did  not  pay  much  attention,  but  rushed  out.  The 
doors  were  blocked  up,  so  that  they  could  not  get  out  fast 
enough,  and  a  number  dashed  through  the  windows.  Some 
opened  a  way  into  the  women's  apartment. 

About  this  time,  I  looked  at  the  clerk's  table,  and  the  crowd 
there  was  considerably  less  dense  than  before.  I  thought  that 
Hilles  might  then  be  got  to  the  table.  I  observed  Amos  E.  Kira- 
berly  have  hold  of  the  table,  partly  holding  it  down;  and  after 
some  little  contest,  I  saw  David  Hilles  in  the  preachers' gallery. 
I  observed  that  he  had  papers,  and  a  person  snatched  them  out 
of  his  hand.  Some  one  close  by,  seized  him,  and  I  saw  no 
more  concerning  it.  The  back  door  Avas  opened,  about  the 
same  time  of  the  alarm:  and  I  observed,  through  the  door, 
some  orthodox  young  men,  as  I  considered,  have  hold  of  the 
table,  pulling ;  and  some  of  the  other  party  on  the  opposite 
side;  and  the  table  went  to  pieces.  Directly  after  this,  I  heard 
some  one  in  the  west  end  of  the  gallery,  saying,  we  will  con- 
tend no  longer.  They  repeated  the  observation,  once  or  twice, 
and  there  was  a  general  suspension.  Directly  after  that,  I  went 
home. 

What  was  it  that  created  the  disorder  in  the  meeting,  and 
the  pushing  about  the  table?  The  most  general  disorder  was 
occasioned  by  the  alarm.  Was  it  in  order,  for  the  clerk  to 
read  an  opening  minute  and  call  the  representatives,  as  it  was 
done  in  that  meeting?  I  should  suppose,  while  one  pi'oposi- 
tion  was  before  the  meeting,  it  would  not  be  correct  to  do  any 
other  business,  according  to  the  usual  order  of  the  society. 
Did  it  not  create  confusion?  I  suppose  it  did  create  some  dis- 
order; for  some  were  calling  out  for  Hilles  to  come  forward, 
and  stating  that  the  clerk  at  the  table  was  not  the  clerk  of  the 
meeting;  and  they  would  not  have  one  that  would  not  serve  the 
meeting.  He  could  not  have  gofup,  without  crowding  away 
some  of  the  orthodox.  Did  you  see  any  who  had  politeness 
enough  to  give  way  at  all?   I  did  not. 

Cr(m-examination.' — You  say  the  disturbance  arose  from  two 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


165 


sources;  first,  from  the  general  alarm;  and  second,  from  Tay- 
lor's reading  the  opening  minute?  Yes.  Was  the  reading  of 
the  opening  minute  previous  to  Hilles'  coming  to  the  table? 
I  did  not  see  Hilles  distinctly,  till  they  were  going  forward; 
and  I  heard  several  call  out  for  the  old  clerk  to  leave  the  table; 
and  one  voice  called  for  Taylor  to  leave  the  table.  Is  it  in  or- 
der to  submit  propositions,  before  an  opening  minute  is  read? 
And  did  you  ever  see  a  proposition  offered  and  acted  on,  in  a 
similar  manner?  I  think  I  have ;  but  it  is  not  general,  to  see  it 
in  so  rapid  a  manner.  There  are  occasionally  cases,  pretty 
much  like  it.  Did  you  know  of  any  of  the  orthodox  uniting 
in  it?  I  did  not.  Would  there  have  been  any  disturbance,  if 
Taylor  had  been  permitted  to  go  on?   I  cannot  say. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Do  you  know  any  thing  about 
taking  down  the  names  of  some  individuals  in  the  meeting  ? 
Between  the  time  that  French's  proposition  was  offered  to  the 
meeting,  and  the  appointment  of  Hilles,  the  names  of  several 
were  called,  and  they  were  ordered  out  of  the  house.  They 
called  over  the  names  of  several  that  belonged  to  Concord 
Monthly  Meeting;  William  Hoyle  and  others.  To  what 
Monthly  Meeting  do  the  Hoyles  belong?   To  Smithfield. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — When  they  were  ordered  out  of 
the  house,  were  there  no  reasons  given  for  it?  None,  at  the 
time  their  names  were  called;  but  they  were  ordered  to  go  out 
of  the  house.  Has  not  any  member  a  right  to  request  a  per- 
son to  go  out  who  has  no  right  in  the  meeting?  The  usual 
practice  is,  to  mention  that  persons  are  in  the  meeting  who 
do  not  belong;  and  if  they  do  not  go,  some  one  usually  goes 
to  them,  and  requests  that  they  should  leave;  but  I  never  heard 
any  ordered  out  in  the  way  practised  at  Mount  Pleasant. 

Court  adjourned  till  9  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Tuesday  the  2\st  of  October ,  9  o'clock,  .3.  M. 

Jehu  Lewis  affirmed. — Witness  is  a  member  of  the  society  of 
Friends,  and  of  Redstone  Quarterly  Meeting,  and  has  been 
ever  since  it  became  a  Quarterly  Meeting,  which  was  previous 
to  the  establishment  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  and  when  it 
belonged  to  Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting.  This  was  the  first 
Quarterly  Meeting  established  west  of  the  mountains,  which 
was  about  thirty  years  ago.  It  consisted  of  two  Monthly 
Meetings,  Westland  and  Redstone,  which  were  all  the  meet- 
ings established  in  this  state  till  Redstone  became  a  Quarterly 
Meeting.  In  1801  or  2,  Concord  was  established  as  a  branch 
of  that  Quarter,  and  so  on,  till  Quarters  were  established  in 
this  state,  by  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Baltimore.  After  Quar- 
terly Meetings  were  established  in  this  state,  Redstone  con- 
tinued a  branch  of  Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting  till  1 8 1 7  or  1818, 
and  is  now  composed  of  three  Monthly  Meetings. 
21 


166 


Trial  o/  Frien  ls 


Cros3-examined.--\  was  at  the  conference  at  Plainfield.  I 
do  not  know  that  I  am  able  to  state  the  object  of  the  confe- 
rence. We  were  informed  that  a  conference  was  to  be  held  at 
Plainfield ;  but  I  believe  that  no  specific  object  was  stated. 
We  had  received  information  through  some  source,  that  a 
certain  part  of  the  society,  in  this  country,  were  about  disown- 
ing many  of  their  members;  all  who  could  not  consent  to  re- 
ceive the  Indiana  epistle,  were  to  be  disowned.  Friends 
considered  it  an  unconstitutional  ground,  and  that  they  had 
been  adopting  discipline  which  they  had  no  right  to  adopt. 
Friends  were  invited  to  come  together  to  consult,  and  to  see 
what  would  be  the  best  measures  to  take  to  maintain  our  rights: 
but  I  never  heard  of  any  thing  like  infringement  on  the  rights 
of  others  in  any  conference,  nor  a  sentiment  dropped  in  any 
conference,  with  a  view  to  encourage  an  infringement  of  the 
rights  of  any  of  the  members  of  the  society.  This  was  the  ob- 
ject of  the  conference,  according  to  my  understanding. 

Was  there  any  thing  said  about  the  appointment  of  a  clerk, 
at  any  of  your  conferences?  At  the  school  house  in  Mount 
Pleasant,  I  think  it  was  represented  that  measures  had  been 
taken  to  keep  a  certain  part  of  the  society  out  of  the  house, 
and  perhaps  a  division  would  take  place;  and  if  so,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  have  a  clerk.  David  Hillcs  was  mentioned  as 
a  suitable  person,  in  case  it  should  be  found  necessary.  I  think 
aTiother  name  was  mentioned.  I  was  not  named  as  assistant 
clerk.  I  heard  nothing  of  it.  Was  David  Hilles  there  ?  I 
think  he  was.  Did  he  make  any  ol>jection  to  being  clerk.^  I 
think  he  did.  There  was  no  conclusion  come  to.  Were  you 
a  representative  from  Redstone  Quarter?  I  was.  And  you 
refused  to  answer  to  Jonathan  Taylor's  call,  and  answered  to 
the  other  clerk  ?  I  did.  How  many  representatives  were  ap- 
pointed from  your  Quarter  ?  Eight.  IIow  many  answered  to 
Taylor?  I  think  five  answered  to  Taylor,  and  one  of  them  af- 
terwards answered  to  Hilles.  Joel  Oxley  was  the  one  that  an- 
swered to  Taylor.  There  is  no  division  in  Redstone  Quarter. 

Were  you  at  the  confei'ence  in  the  barn?  I  was.  I  know  of 
no  letter  being  read  there.  I  think  that  John  Cleaver's  me- 
mory failed  him.  I  think  I  can  state  positively,  that  none  was 
read.    I  do  not  recollect  any  thing  in  the  shape  of  a  letter. 

Do  you  know  where  Elias  Hicks,  Amos  Pcaslee,  and  Halli- 
day  Jackson,  had  their  lodgings  during  the  Yearly  Meeting? 
Some  of  them  made  their  home  at  Israel  French's,  but  Halli- 
day  Jackson  did  not.  I  came  into  Mount  Pleasant  on  Seventh- 
day  afternoon,  and  was  informed  that  the  members  of  the 
select  meeting  had  been  locked  out,  and  among  others,  the 
representatives  from  Redstone  select  meeting  to  the  Yearly 
Meeting ;  and  that  they  had  to  hold  their  meeting  out  doors 
in  the  yard.  From  this  we  presumed  we  should  be  excluded. 
It  was  reasonable  to  expect  that  like  measures  would  be  taken 


ut  SteubenvlUc,  Ohio. 


167 


on  Second-day,  to  keep  all  out  who  did  not  think  with  them. 
There  were  several  things  talked  of  at  the  school  house,  but 
nothing  agreed  to,  but  to  go  to  the  meetinghouse  at  the  usual 
time.  This  was  mentioned  by  some  one  present — if  we  were 
locked  out  of  the  house,  that  we  should  use  no  violence,  but 
wait  quietly  in  the  yard  till  the  members  were  pretty  generally 
assembled,  and  then  determine  what  course  to  pursue.  I  be- 
lieve no  other  agreement  was  come  to. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Is  Israel  French  a  member  of  the 
society?  I  believe  he  is.  I  never  knew  his  character  impeach- 
ed. I  never  knew  but  Friends  had  liberty  to  put  up  with  their 
friends.  It  has  been  the  practice,  heretofore,  to  put  up  where 
convenience  suited.  Then  Friends  have  not  been  considered 
as  under  any  obligation  to  go  to  a  tavern?  Not  as  I  have  ever 
known.  Was  there  any  agreement  that  a  new  clerk  should  be 
elected?  Not  that  I  know  of.  1  did  not  understand  any  such 
thing.  It  was  contemplated,  that  we  should  be  shut  out  of 
the  house,  and  that  there  would  probably  be  a  division  :  and 
if  so,  that  we  should  want  a  clerk.  It  was  not  determined 
on  ?  No  agreement  was  come  to.  I  do  not  recollect  any.  It 
appeared  to  be  the  settled  conclusion,  to  go  on  at  the  usual 
time,  and  if  shut  out,  then  to  conclude  what  to  do. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — There  were  several  things  pro 
posed,  in  case  the  orthodox  did  so  and  so?  Several  proposi- 
tions were  made;  but  it  was  finally  concluded,  that  we  could 
come  to  no  agreement,  till  we  knew  what  the  orthodox  would 
do.  And,  therefore,  we  did  not  come  to  any  agreement.  And 
you  left  the  conference,  impressed  with  the  idea  that  there 
was  no  agreement,  or  understanding,  but  to  go  on  at  the  usual 
hour?  Yes.  But  if  shut  out,  you  concluded  to  act  in  concert 
with  others  who  were  shut  out — but  if  let  in?  I  had  nothing 
in  my  mind,  farther  than  to  go  there.  I  had  not  come  to  any 
conclusion.  I  was  not  prevented  from  entering.  I  was  not 
an  eye-witness,  that  any  were  rejected  who  had  a  right.  After 
I  got  into  the  house,  there  was  no  consultation  upon  measures, 
that  I  know  of.  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  knew  a  question 
carried  as  that  was  :  although  I  have  often  known  questions 
carried  with  great  eagerness.  The  voice  of  approbation  was 
very  great.  How  much  time  passed,  after  the  proposition  by 
French,  before  the  nomination  of  Hilles?  I  think  not  much 
time,  between  the  uniting  with  that  proposition,  and  the  nomi- 
nation. All  that  we  could  tell,  was  by  the  voice  of  the  people: 
and  it  appeared  to  be  carried  by  a  large  voice.  We  do  not 
expect  that  every  body  will  speak.  I  think,  as  near  as  I  can 
recollect,  after  the  nomination  of  David  Hilles,  and  while  the 
voice  was  going  in  favour  of  it,  the  opening  minute  was  read, 
and  the  clerks  went  on  to  read.  Was  not  the  opening  minute 
read  between  the  time  of  French's  proposition,  and  the  nomi- 


168 


Trial  of  Friends 


nation  of  David  Hilles?  I  think  it  was  about  the  time  David 
Hilles  was  named.  I  was  not  prevented  from  going  in.  I 
went  in  alone,  I  think  about  twenty  minutes  before  10  o'clock. 
I  went  to  one  door,  and  the  guards  were  standing  there,  con- 
tending with  somebody,  and  I  went  to  another  door,  and  en- 
tered without  any  interruption. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Do  you  not  know,  that  there 
had  been  a  conference  of  the  orthodox  on  Saturday?  I  know 
that  they  had  a  select  meeting  on  Seventh-day,  which  is  ac- 
cording to  discipline.  Do  you  know  of  any  being  present,  not 
ministers  and  elders  ?  It  was  their  meeting.  Who  were  the 
select  memb&rs  from  your  Quarter,  that  were  locked  out  ? 
Joseph  Johns,  Elizabeth  Mills,  and  Mary  Hall.  Do  you  know 
any  thing  of  a  meeting  on  the  27th?  I  knew  there  was  to  be 
a  meeting.  My  understanding  was,  that  each  Yearly  Meet- 
ing was  invited  to  appoint  a  committee,  to  meet  in  general 
conference  at  such  place  as  they  should  appoint.  But  this 
measure  was  not  united  in,  by  our  Yearly  Meeting.  There 
was  a  very  considerable  opposition  to  the  appointment  of  such 
a  committee.  When  French  made  his  proposition,  was  the 
meeting  in  order?  I  considered  it  so.  It  was  quiet.  There 
had  been  some  bustle,  a  little  before:  but  I  was  back,  and  did 
not  see  it.  It  was  as  still  as  could  be  expected,  in  so  large  a 
crowd. 

Joseph  Hoyle  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  society  of 
Friends?  I  am  a  member  of  Smithfield  Monthly  Meeting. 
(Here  the  witness  related  the  circumstances  of  a  case,  in  which 
the  clerk  of  a  Monthly  Meeting  had  been  removed  by  the  meet- 
ing, and  his  place  filled  by  another,  although  the  clerk  was 
in  his  place  at  the  time,  and  had  not  been  previously  under 
dealing.)  It  was  announced  to  the  meeting  by  an  individual, 
that  the  clerk  was  disqualified,  and  a  new  one  was  immedi- 
ately named  and  approved.  He  went  up,  and  took  his  seat, 
and  the  old  one  went  out  of  the  house.  I  should  suppose  it 
was  from  ten  to  thirteen  years  ago.  I  could  mention  the  name 
of  the  old  clerk,  if  necessary. 

Mr.  Wright. — Give  the  name.  Robert  Ritchie  was  the  old 
clerk.  Who  was  the  new  one?  I  do  not  remember;  but  he 
was  appointed,  and  a  minute  entered. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Do  you  know  any  thing  of  a  con- 
ference, held  at  Smithfield?  The  first  conference  that  I  recol- 
lect, was  at  Smithfield.  There  were  present  several  members, 
and  some  who  were  not  members.  The  leading  object  seem- 
ed to  be,  that  such  as  were  on  the  Hicksite  side,  should  be 
kept  out  of  the  meeting,  and  that  the  law  should  be  put  in 
force.  I  had  not  then  come  out.  My  views  were  not  known. 
Benjamin  W.  Ladd  seemed  to  insist,  that  the  civil  law  should 
be  put  in  force,  to  keep  such  out  of  the  meeting  house.    I  ob- 


I 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


169 


jected  to  it,  as  being  contrary  to  our  discipline.  It  was  pro- 
posed by  Laddj  he  told  me,  that  he  had  been  at  Stillwater, 
and  that  he  met  with  considerable  opposition,  from  those  of 
the  Hicksite  side:  and  that  there  was  no  other  way,  but  to  put 
the  law  in  force,  and  to  keep  the  Hicksites  out  of  the  house. 
I  do  not  recollect  that  he  stated  any  thing  about  barring  the 
doors.  After  about  two  hours,  they  broke  up,  without  agree- 
ing on  any  thing.    It  all  went  to  nothing. 

Cross-examined. — Where  was  that  conference  held?  It  was 
held  at  William  Blackiston's  stpre,  in  Smithfield.  Was  any 
effort  made  to  get  a  select  party  there,  to  attend  this  confe- 
rence of  the  orthodox?  I  was  there.  My  sentiments  were  not 
known.  They  thought  I  was  orthodox.  They  wished  to  put 
me  forward  in  the  society;  and  one  Friend  said,  that  he  would 
rather  give  me  ten  dollars,  than  that  I  should  turn  on  the 
other  side.  But  it  did  not  make  much  impression  on  me. 
At  the  Monthly  Meeting  before  spoken  of,  Robert  Ritchie 
left  the  chair.  It  was  not  known  to  the  meeting  what  he  had 
-done.  Do  not  the  members  of  the  Monthly  Meeting  know 
which  of  the  members  of  that  Monthly  Meeting  are  under 
dealing?  It  had  not  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  meeting, 
being  a  thing  that  had  lately  happened.  I  did  not  know,  and 
I  heard  a  great  many  after  meeting,  wishing  to  know  what 
had  discjualified  him.  He  left  the  chair.  I  think  I  learned 
what  it  was  afterwards.  It  was  drinking  to  excess.  There 
had  been  no  complaint  entered,  in  any  meeting  for  discipline. 
Had  any  committee  waited  on  him?  I  believe  not  any. 

Jonathan  Pierce  affirmed. — Are  you  a  member  of  the  society 
of  Friends?  I  am.  Were  you  at  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  was. 
Did  you  see  any  body  obstructed  in  entering  the  meeting?  I 
saw  a  number  obstructed  at  the  door;  I  was  not  obstructed,  be- 
cause I  had  made  a  contract  with  the  orthodox,  the  evening 
before,  that  I  should  not  be  interrupted;  but  I  saw  a  number 
obstructed,  and  I  believe  John  Cleaver  was  one.  After  I  got 
in,  I  was  not  satisfied,  as  I  saw  considerable  obstruction  at 
the  men's  door,  and  thought  it  might  be  the  case  at  the  wo- 
men's door. 

I  went  round  to  the  west  end  of  the  house,  and  saw  a  great 
many  women  standing  out  in  the  rain  and  mud.  My  wife  was 
standing  on  the  door-sill ;  she  beckoned  to  me,  and  said  she 
had  been  repulsed  twice  by  men,  who  said,  that  she  had  no  right 
to  be  admitted.  I  went  and  informed  several  men,  and  we 
went  round.  I  saw  several  women  repulsed,  though  I  was  not 
acquainted  with  them.  We  waited  a  reasonable  time,  to  see 
whether  they  would  let  them  in  or  not.  At  length  several  of 
us  took  a  walk  round,  and  asked  them  by  what  authority  they 
kept  the  women  out  in  the  mud  and  rain.  They  said  they  did 
not  wish  to  keep  any  out,  except  those  who  were  not  mem- 


170 


Trial  of  Friends 


bers.  I  told  them  that  they  had  done  it,  and  that  my  wife 
was  one  of  the  number.  One  woman,  as  I  came  up,  was 
pushed  off  the  door-sill,  nearly  down  on  the  ground.  I  told 
them  the  women  should  go  in,  and  spoke  in  pretty  positive 
terms.  I  spoke  to  one  woman,  who  had  once  lived  in  our 
family,  and  told  her,  she  ought  to  know  better  than  to  keep 
my  wife  out,  who  had  as  good  a  right  as  she,  or  any  one  of 
the  rest.  About  this  time,  eight  or  ten  went  in.  I  then  turn- 
ed, and  went  to  the  other  end  of  the  house,  and  when  I  came 

to  the  door  many  were  trying  to  get  in.    S — —  D  was 

trying  to  get  inj  he  was  a  member  himself,  and  his  grandson 
assisted. 

At  about  this  time  I  heard  David  Hilles  called  for;  I  went 
to  David,  and  told  him,  he  was  requested  to  come  to  the  table, 
that  there  was  an  inquiry  for  him.  David  said  it  was  impos- 
sible to  get  to  the  table,  there  was  so  great  a  crowd.  I  told 
him  we  would  endeavour  to  make  way  for  him.  I  requested 
the  people  to  give  way,  and  they  did  so,  till  we  came  near  the 
stove.  There  the  crowd  was  so  dense,  and  the  opposition  so 
great,  that  we  stopped ;  while  I  stood  there,  I  saw  some  peo- 
ple very  much  pulled  about.  I  did  not  know  which  party  they 
were  of. 

Being  acquainted  with  Amos  E.  Kimberly,  I  thought  I  could 
persuade  him  to  desist,  as  I  had  had  a  conversation  with  him 
before  I  left  home.  I  pushed  up,  although  there  was  consider 
able  opposition,  as  many  as  three  having  hold  of  me  at  once, 
and  at  length  got  up  where  I  could  speak  to  Amos.  About 
this  time  they  said  the  galleries  were  coming  down,  and  many 
retreated.  I  remonstrated  with  Kimberly  about  giving  up  tht- 
table.  I  told  him,  that  his  party  had  become  the  aggressors, 
that  they  had  pushed  females  out  in  the  rain,  and  that  my  wife 
was  among  the  number.  He  said,  they  would  not  give  up  the 
table  while  they  were  able  to  hang  to  it.  Soon  after,  several 
had  hold  of  it,  and  among  the  rest  a  young  man  by  the  name 
of  Planner.  Some  one  had  hold  of  my  coat  tail,  and  I  took  hold 
of  the  table.  Some  one  on  my  left  hand  asked  me  what  my 
name  was.  I  told  him  what  it  was,  and  where  I  lived.  I  then 
asked  him  his  name.  He  said  it  was  none  of  my  business.  1 
told  them  they  were  orthodox,  and  the  table  was  soon  pulled 
to  pieces. 

Cross-examination. — When  the  table  was  broken,  did  not  a 
part  stick  to  your  hands.''  No.  You  were  determined  not  to 
surrender  at  the  first  jerk  at  your  coat  tail?  That  is  your  con- 
struction, said  the  witness.  Do  you  know  of  any  of  your  party 
having  a  part  of  the  table.?  I  do  not,  except  the  drawer,  after 
the  table  was  broken.  I  advanced  through  the  ile  without 
much  opposition,  except  by  three  men,  John  Heald,  Jonathan 
Stanley,  and  Nathan  Heald.   What  was  your  object?  I  wanted 


at  Steubenvilkj  Okia. 


171 


to  get  within  speaking  distance  of  Amos  E.  Kimberly.  I  made 
use  of  no  force  other  than  I  would  use  in  any  dense  crowd.  I 
intended  to  use  so  much  force  as  to  get  through  the  crowd 
peaceably  if  I  could,  and  not  without.  Did  you  not  advance 
with  a  determination  to  get  to  the  table  by  force?  No,  I  did 
not.  What  do  you  mean  by  force  then?  I  meant  to  use  so 
much  force  as  to  take  me  up  peaceably  to  the  table.  But  sup- 
pose that  men  were  knowingly  and  designedly  opposing  your 
advance?  It  was  not  my  intention,  I  say,  to  force  my  way. 
What  were  you  doing  at  the  time  they  were  pulling  your  coat? 
When  somebody  liked  to  have  pulled  me  down,  I  reached 
over  toward  the  table  to  keep  from  being  pulled  down.  I  did 
not  take  hold  of  the  table  till  my  coat  was  seized.  I  had  hold 
of  the  banister  with  one  hand. 

How  did  you  make  your  way  through  this  thick  crowd?  I 
opened  the  way  with  my  hands,  as  I  would  in  going  to  my  seat 
in  the  meeting  house.  I  do  not  know  that  I  pushed  any  aside; 
but  it  would  bother  John  C.  Wright  himself  to  remember  all 
the  minutiae.  Do  you  belong  to  the  same  Monthly  Meeting  with 

D  ,  and  do  you  not  know  that  he  was  under  dealing?  I  may 

have  heard  that  he  was  under  dealing;  it  was  possible,  but  I  can- 
not tell.  That  was  not  the  reason  given  for  keeping  him  out  of 
the  house.    I  did  not  inquire  of  the  guards  who  obstructed 

him.    I  went  in  to  make  Avay  for  the  old  man  .    I  told 

them  to  make  way,  and  let  him  in.  I  had  no  partiality  for  one 
man  more  than  another;  for  when  in  the  gallery,  Thomas 
Shillitoe  came  along,  and  as  I  pushed  back,  and  said  let  the 
old  man  come,  he  looked  up  and  told  me  not  to  give  way  a  jot, 
and  I  told  him  I  would  not  till  orthodoxy  was  put  down.  Why 
did  you  go  out  of  the  meeting  so  soon  after  you  first  entered? 
I  went  out  because  I  thought  the  women  might  be  treated  in 
the  same  way  that  I  saw  some  of  the  men  treated. 

I  saw  them  opposing  doctor  Isaac  Lamborn,  a  member  of 
Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting.  I  saw  several  have  hold  of  him. 
I  never  attended  a  Yearly  Meeting  before,  where  there  were 
guards  at  the  doors;  the  object  of  guards,  as  I  have  considered 
it,  is  to  persuade  persons  who  are  not  members,  not  to  intrude. 
And  if  you  had  been  appointed  a  guard,  you  would  not  have 
performed  your  duty?  I  would  not  stand  guard  to  a  meeting 
house.  Not  even  if  you  had  been  appointed?  No.  Did  you 
know  of  any  persons  Ijcing  kept  out,  unless  they  had  been  dis 
owned?  Doctor  Isaac  Lamborn  was  opposed  because  he  be 
longed  to  Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting;  that  was  the  only  reason 
I  heard  offered.  He  told  me  himself,  that  he  was  a  member 
of  that  meeting.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  mention  any  other 
who  was  kept  out,  except  John  Cleaver.  But  Cleaver  and 
D  ,  did  enter  the  house?   I  believe  they  did. 

Did  you  use  any  threats  to  the  guards,  to  induce  them  to 


172 


Trial  of  Friends 


give  way?  I  do  not  know  that  I  did.  Did  you  not  use  threats 
to  the  guards  at  the  women's  door?  I  said  that  the  women 
must  go  in — I  merely  put  out  my  hands,  and  said,  these  women 
must  go  in,  for  they  have  a  good  right  in:  there  were  perhaps 
four  or  six,  standing  as  guards  at  the  women's  door;  they  ad- 
mitted some,  and  rejected  others.  I  never  knew  a  woman's 
guard  before;  nor  a  man's  guard  at  the  women's  door.  I  have 
seen  individuals  stationed  near  the  door,  and  if  any  persons  of- 
fered to  go  in,  who  had  not  a  right,  they  would  go  to  them, 
and  persuade  them  otherwise.  Was  not  the  meeting  on  Second- 
day  a  meeting  for  discipline?  Yes. 

Caleb  Kirk  affirmed. — Witness  stated,  that  he  was  at  the 
Yearly  Meeting  on  the  day  of  the  commencement  of  business. 
He  made  an  estimate  of  the  men  remaining  after  the  orthodox 
withdrew,  and  he  thought  there  were  about  six  hundred. 

Cross-examination. — It  was  after  the  body  of  the  orthodox  went 
away.  I  knew  of  but  one  remaining  of  that  party.  I  knew  of 
none  present,  who  were  not  members.  I  was  not  disowned, 
but  was  under  dealing.  I  think  I  had  a  right  to  be  there,  when 
it  was  undertaken  to  deal  with  me  only  under  a  spurious  dis- 
cipline. I  was  not  under  dealing,  according  to  the  established 
discipline,  and  I  think  I  had  a  right  to  be  there. 

Did  you  ever  know  a  case,  in  which  a  man  would  have  a 
right  to  force  his  way,  contrary  to  discipline?  I  don't  know 
that  I  have.  I  made  my  objection  to  the  meeting,  and  they 
said  they  were  acting  according  to  discipline,  but  some  part 
of  the  meeting  thought  otherwise.  The  decision  of  the  ortho- 
dox party  was  to  proceed  against  me.  Was  there  a  division? 
There  was  no  division,  only  in  sentiment.  Did  you  not  hear 
the  minute  read.-"  I  was  not  there  when  the  decision  was  made. 
Does  not  the  discipline  state,  that  members  under  dealing  are 
not  to  be  admitted  to  a  seat?  Yes,  but  they  ought  not  to  be 
under  dealing  without  a  violation  of  discipline.  After  this 
time,  and  when  you  made  your  statement,  did  you  receive  a 
testimony  of  disownment?  Last  week  I  did.  The  complaint 
was  perhaps  two  months  ago.  The  trial  did  not  take  place 
till  since  the  Yearly  Meeting.  I  was  informed  of  my  right  to 
appeal,  but  have  not  yet  appealed. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Were  you  served  with  a  testi- 
mony of  disownment.''  Yes.  Witness  produced  the  testimony, 
but  it  was  not  read.  The  Monthly  Meeting  to  which  I  be- 
long, is  now  divided  into  two  Monthly  Meetings. 

Cross-examination. — I  belong  to  Smithfield.  Have  they  not 
set  up  a  new  Monthly  Meeting  there.''  Yes.  When  was  their 
first  meeting  held?  Yesterday.  I  cannot  tell  what  number 
constituted  the  Monthly  Meeting  before  the  division,  nor  how 
many  were  there  yesterday.  How  many  do  you  suppose  were 
there  yesterday?   I  presume  not  more  than  a  dozen  males,  and 


ut  Sieubenville,  Ohio. 


173 


about  as  many  females.  How  many  do  you  think  there  were 
in  the  Monthly  Meeting  before  the  division — were  there  sixty 
or  seventy  families?  Thei-e  may  have  been  sixty,  within  the 
limits  of  the  Monthly  Meeting  before  the  division. 

William  Dilworth  recalled. — Witness  stated  that  he  heard  a 
person  cry  out,  huzza  for  Jackson.  It  was  a  black  man,  by  the 
name  of  Thomas  Nelson.  He  went  away  with  the  orthodox. 
I  believe  he  is  a  Jackson  man;  he  was  when  he  lived  with  me. 
He  was  in  the  gallery  at  the  time,  directly  behind  me.  Was 
there  a  rush  out  of  the  house  previous  to  Dr.  Judkins  giving 
the  alarm  that  the  galleries  were  falling  ?  I  think  there  was 
not. 

Israel  French  affirmed. — Did  you  attend  the  last  Yearly  Meet- 
ing at  Mount  Pleasant?  I  did.  Are  you  a  member  of  the 
society  of  Friends?  I  am  a  member.  You  made  a  proposi- 
tion in  relation  to  displacing  the  old  clerk;  was  the  meeting 
quiet  at.  that  time?  I  thought  so;  as  much  so  as  at  any  other 
time.  What  was  that  proposition?  I  will  give  the  words  as 
nearly  as  I  can.  I  stated  that  a  painful  duty  devolved  on  me, 
to  object  to  the  clerks  at  the  table;  that  their  conduct  since 
last  year  had  been  such,  as  in  my  opinion  had  disqualified 
them  for  serving  the  meeting  acceptably.  Did  you  say  clerk 
or  clerks?  I  said  clerks.  How  was  it  received  by  the  meet- 
ing? It  appeared  to  be  approved  by  a  large  number  of  voices. 
Is  it  usual  for  any  proposition  to  be  more  united  in  than  that 
was?  I  think  not.  Much  inquiry  has  been  had  here  as  to 
concert  and  agreement — was  there  an  understanding  that  this 
proposition  should  be  made?  No — I  am  free  to  say  that  I 
knew  of  no  concert.    It  was  made  from  my  own  sense  of  duty. 

Cross-examination. — Did  you  state  that  the  clerks  were  dis- 
qualified to  serve  the  meeting  acceptably,  or  even  to  open  it  ? 
My  objections  were  divers:  I  considered  that  Jonathan  Taylor 
had  attached  himself  to  a  party  in  the  society,  which  appeared 
to  me  to  be  a  small  minority  in  the  United  States ;  and  that 
party  had  put  a  course  of  measures  into  operation  to  ex- 
clude a  majority  from  membership;  and  he  was  active  in 
those  measures.  I  felt  aggrieved  at  it,  and  also  with  his  con- 
duct the  day  previous,  of  which  I  had  been  informed.  I  was 
not  present,  but  I  had  it  from  such  evidence  as  I  could  be- 
lieve. I  considered  Amos  Peaslee  a  regular  and  approved 
minister  of  the  society  of  Friends;  and  I  considered  that  our 
discipline  had  been  violated  by  Jonathan  Taylor,  in  opposing 
Amos  Peaslee. 

I  belong  to  the  same  Monthly  and  Prepartive  Meeting  to 
which  he  belongs:  and  as  to  that  transaction,  there  had  not 
been  time,  as  in  some  other  cases,  to  speak  to  him  on  the  sub- 
ject. I  had  previously  had  couversations  with  him,  and  had 
written  to  him,  endeavouring  to  persuade  him  to  keep  out  of 
21 


J74 


Trial  of  Friends 


party  spirit.  I  do  not  wish  to  belong;  to  any  party.  My 
testimony  has  been  against  party  spirit.  My  sentiments  are 
in  arxorclance  with  those  that  are  termed  the  other  party. 
Had  you  no  conversation  with  any  body  in  relation  to  mak- 
ing that  proposition?  I  believe  I  had  not.  I  do  not  recol- 
lect that  a  proposition  had  ever  been  made  that  the  clerk 
should  be  objected  to.  It  is  difficult  to  recollect  all  the  con- 
versations that  have  passed.  I  have  talked  with  many  of  my 
neighbours  on  the  subject,  and  we  thought  that  members  in 
office  should  serve  the  meeting.  For  a  considerable  time 
previous,  we  had  exchanged  sentiments,  but  I  cannot  iden- 
tify any  particular  time.  Had  you  not  had  a  conversation 
with  Halliday  Jackson  and  Amos  Peaslee  on  the  subject?  I 
think  not.  Were  they  not  at  the  school  house?  I  believe 
they  were,  but  nothing  was  talked  there  about  removing  the 
clerk.  It  was  generally  believed  ai  the  time,  that  there  would 
be  a  separation,  but  we  could  not  tell  in  what  way.  The 
movements  of  the  orthodox  Friends  had  been  so  mysterious, 
that  we  could  not  tell  what  course  to  take.  We  could  not 
come  to  any  conclusion  how  to  act.  It  was  talked  of,  that  it 
might  be  necessary  to  appoint  a  new  clerk.  If  we  were  kept 
out,  we  calculated  to  try  to  hold  a  meeting  in  the  yard,  or 
somewhere  else.  It  was  mentioned  in  this  way:  as  the  Quar- 
ters had  all  become  divided,  except  Redstone,  it  would  be 
proper,  if  a  clerk  should  be  necessary,  to  take  him  from  the 
undivided  Quarter  ;  and  David  Hilles  was  thought  of  as  a 
proper  person.  His  name  was  mentioned,  and  I  think  some 
others.  We  thought  that  Quarter  was  more  upon  the  ground 
of  Friends'  principles  than  where  party  spirit  had  run  higher. 
We  thought  that  Friends  there  were  not  so  much  in  party 
spirit  as  in  some  other  places.  Was  it  not  spoken  of  as  a 
matter  that  would  happen?  We  were  in  hopes  that  a  recon- 
ciliation might  take  place  among  Friends.  Did  you  advance 
with  Hilles  to  the  table?  I  did  not.  Was  not  the  succession 
of  voices,  and  the  manner  of  uniting,  unusual?  They  were  in 
rather  more  rapid  succession  than  usual;  but  I  think  I  have 
heard  them  as  much  so  on  some  occasions.  It  is  generally  so 
on  occasions  where  there  is  much  excitement;  I  have  heard 
as  many,  but  it  is  not  usual  in  the  society  in  times  of  peace 
and  quiet.  We  have  not  hud  such  turbulent  times  till  within 
a  few  years  past.  Was  there  time  for  the  meeting  to  pause 
and  reflect?  At  first  it  appeared  to  be  in  a  rapid  way,  as  has 
been  mentioned;  and  when  this  subsided,  there  were  a  number 
of  voices,  one  by  one,  till  it  rather  died  away;  and  then  the 
proposition  for  David  Hilles  to  be  clerk  was  made.  That  was 
united  in;  but  before  the  voices  were  fairly  uttered,  and  at  the 
time  when  the  expression  of  sentiment  appeared  to  be  in  fa- 
vour of  David  Hilles,  I  think  one  person  in  the  gallery  ob- 
served, we  have  a  clerk;  and  another  said,  go  on,  and  open  the 


(U  Steubenvillcy  Ofiio. 


175 


meeling.  At  this  juncture  I  think  it  was  that  the  clerk  rose 
to  go  on,  g-iving-  no  time  for  a  decision  of  the  question.  He 
went  on  to  open  the  nrieeting,  over  the  heads  of  those  who  had 
united. 

It  is  fixed  on  my  mind,  that  it  was  after  David  Hilles  was 
named  and  united  in,  by  this  union  of  voices,  that  Taylor  pro- 
ceeded to  open  the  meeting.  Did  any  of  the  orthodox  unite 
in  these  propositions?  I  could  not  tell,  in  looking  over  so 
large  a  meeting,  many  of  whom  were  strangers;  but  I  did  not 
get  the  idea  that  any  of  the  orthodox  party  united.  When 
Hilles  was  nominated,  I  think  all  that  I  heard  in  opposition, 
was  one  voice,  saying,  we  have  a  clerk;  and  another  one,  or 
two,  said,  go  on  with  the  business. 

What  were  the  objections  to  Amos  E.  Kimberly?  They 
were  pretty  much  of  the  same  character  as  those  against  Tay- 
lor.   I  attended  a  meeting  where  he  was,  at  which  meeting 
Elisha  Dawson  and  Amos  Peaslee  also  attended.    He  got  up 
at  the  close  of  the  meeting,  and  said  the  meeting  had  been 
imposed  on,  and  intruded  on,  by  those  from  another  society. 
He  said  he  had  no  unity  with  them,  nor  with  their  preaching: 
whilst  I  believed  it  to  be  the  gospel,  and  that  they  were  in 
unity  with  our  society.    They  are  Hicksites  I  suppose?    I  do 
not  know  that  they  acknowledge  themselves  Hicksites.  One 
thing  I  know,  that  they  have  been  shut  out  of  meeting  houses 
by  the  orthodox.  I  do  not  think  they  are  opposed  to  any  body: 
but  are  disposed  to  spread  the  power  of  the  gospel  among 
mankind.    I  heard  one  of  them  say,  that  he  liked  a  good  or- 
thodox, better  than  a  bad  Hicksite.    They  had  attended  what 
has  been  called  the  Hicksite  meeting  in  Philadelphia;  and 
that  is  all  the  charge  I  have  heard  brought  against  them.  I 
know  that  the  orthodox  oppose  them.    Are  they  received  and 
understood  by  the  Hicksite  party  to  oppose  the  orthodox,  and 
to  agree  with  the  Hicksites?    They  are  willing  to  go  to  every 
part  of  the  society,  and  they  do  go  where  they  are  received. 
I  do  not  know  of  their  opposing  the  orthodox  party.     I  be- 
lieve they  defend  what  they  think  to  be  the  principles  of  the 
society:  and  I  received  them  as  gospel  ministers.     I  received 
them  as  uniting  with  those  with  whom  I  have  been  associated 
since  the  unhappy  difference.    They  are  received  I)y  us  as  be- 
longing to  the  society  of  Friends:  and  1  have  never  known  them 
to  be  objected  to  by  any  on  our  side.    They  both  told  me, 
that  for  a  long  time,  they  had  been  claimed  by  both  sides,  till 
they  attended  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  Philadelphia.  There 
might  have  been  objections  before;  but  that  was  the  first  com- 
plaint against  them.    Are  they  not  received  by  the  Ilick'-.itc 
party,  as  if  thry  Mere  of  that  party?    1  suppose  they  arc.  I 
know  nothing  to  the  contrary;  and  \vc  are  willing  to  have 
them 


176 


Trial  of  Friends 


Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — At  the  time  Hicks  and  Peaslec 
came  to  this  country,  had  it  been  determined  in  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Ohio,  which  Yearly  Meeting  in  Philadelphia  they 
would  recognise?  Not  that  I  know  of.  Could  there  be  an 
attempt  made  to  bring  a  meeting  to  order  but  by  stopping 
them?  I  know  of  no  other  way.  It  is  my  impression,  that 
the  clerk  went  on  before  the  close  of  the  uniting  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  David  Hilles. 

Elisha  Bates  called  again.  Question  by  Mr.  Tappan. — How 
long  have  you  been  acquainted  with  Israel  French?  [This 
question  was  objected  to  by  counsel  for  the  prosecution,  as 
being  irrelevant.] 

The  Judge  said  that  the  character  of  French  had  not  been 
impeached,  and  until  it  was  attacked,  it  was  improper  to  in- 
troduce evidence  in  favour  of  it. 

Mr.  Tappan  said  he  asked  the  question,  because,  in  the  ex- 
amination of  Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  in  answer  to  an  interroga- 
tion, whether  one  question  was  not  usually  settled  before 
another  was  taken  up  in  the  meeting,  he  said  it  was,  if  the 
proposition  was  made  by  a  member  of  any  weight:  and  the 
object  of  this  question  was,  to  show  that  French  was  a  man  of 
high  standing  in  the  society.  But  if  this  be  admitted,  it  is  suf- 
ficient. 

Mr.  Goodnow  said,  they  had  not  endeavoured  to  impeach 
the  standing  of  Mr.  French,  as  a  member  of  the  society,  or  a 
gentleman  of  veracity.  He  therefore  thought  there  were  no 
grounds  for  this  inquiry.  If  it  were  made  in  relation  to 
French,  it  might  be  important  as  to  every  other  member  of 
the  society  who  had  taken  a  part  in  this  affair.  His  honour 
would  see  that  it  would  open  a  wide  door:  and  Mr.  G.  thought 
it  incorrect.  If  correct,  he  should  not  object,  because  he  did 
not  think  it  important. 

The  question  was  waived. 

Elisha  Bates,  in  continuation. — Mr.  Tappan  exhibited  to  the 
witness  the  printed  minutes  of  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting. 
Witness  stated  that  the  minutes  had  been  printed  for  a  num- 
ber of  years  past,  but  not  always  upon  the  same  plan.  They 
had  been  sometimes  published  at  large,  and  sometimes 
abri<lged. 

Mr.  Tappan. — We  want  to  know  if  these  are  the  minutes, 
as  they  purport  to  be,  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting:  is  that  your 
type,  and  was  this  printed  at  your  office?  I  believe  it  was 
printed  at  my  office.  Was  there  not  a  meeting  previous 
to  First-day,  by  that  part  of  the  members  of  the  society  of 
Friends  with  whom  you  act,  and  whom  we  call  orthodox?  Was 
there  not  a  conference  upon  the  subject  of  the  ensuing  Yearly 
Meeting  ?  Not  that  I  know  of,  except  the  conference  of  the 
general  committee  of  committees  from  the  Yearly  Meetings. 
That  was  held  on  Fiflh-day.   I  was  there  a  short  time,  but  do 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


177 


not  know  what  was  determined  at  that  meeting.  The  objects 
of  this  general  committee  were  not  defined.  It  was  called  in 
consequence  of  an  invitation  from  our  Yearly  Meeting  to  all 
the  Yearly  Meetings  in  the  world,  Indiana,  Carolina,  New- 
England,  &c.  appointed  committees.  The  Yearly  Meeting  in 
Ireland,  entered  into  the  measure,  but  did  not  send  delegates. 
There  was  nothing  said  about  excluding  Hicksites,  in  that  or 
any  other  meeting  that  I  ever  attended.  I  say  clearly  and  de- 
cidedly there  never  was.  Did  all  those  strangers  belonging  to 
the  orthodox  attend  on  Second-day?  I  presume  most  of  them 
did.  They  withdrew  with  us  from  the  meeting.  It  is  my  im- 
pression, though  I  am  not  positive,  that  they  all  withdrew, 
and  that  they  continued  to  attend  with  us. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright, — Are  you  positive  as  to  the  time 
when  Jonathan  Taylor  began  to  read?  I  am  not  very  positive. 
I  think  he  read  the  opening  minute  after  Israel  French  made 
the  proposition.  I  think,  but  am  not  positive,  that  it  was  be- 
fore David  Hilles  was  named.  Did  you  see  Dr.  Carroll  and 
Jonathan  Pierce  advancing?  I  don't  think  I  did.  I  saw  Car- 
roll, after  the  pressure  had  been  made,  standing  upon  one  of 
the  raised  seats  in  the  lower  part  of  the  ministers'  gallery. 
As  to  filling  the  ministers'  gallery,  did  any  thing  unusual 
take  place?  There  was  nothing  unusual.  At  the  time  when 
the  Indian  committee  rose,  and  the  doors  were  opened  for  the 
admission  of  the  members  generally,  I  think  the  representa- 
tives, and  the  committee  on  Indian  concerns,  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  general  committee  from  the  different  Yearly  Meet- 
ings, and  some  ministers,  were  there,  with  their  companions 
attending.  I  think  the  number  of  men  was  about  a  hundred; 
and  they  took  such  seats  as  it  is  usual  for  such  persons  to 
occupy.  Have  you  stated  the  number  of  persons  that  remain- 
ed after  the  separation  took  place?  I  did  state,  that,  from  the 
best  observation  that  I  could  make,  those  in  the  meeting  on 
Third-day,  when  I  made  a  demand  for  the  house,  were  about 
one-fourth  of  the  whole,  or  one  to  three  of  the  meeting  held  in 
the  yard. 

Questioned  by  Mr,  Tappan. — Were  there  any  person*  in  the 
yard  who  were  not  members?  I  did  not  know  of  any,  except 
when  I  went  to  go  into  the  house,  some  came  rather  out  of 
the  door  into  the  yard.  I  know  of  no  others  that  were  in  the 
yard.  The  committee  on  Indian  affairs  were  in  the  house, 
were  they?  Yes;  and  the  representatives  and  door-keepers 
were  in  the  other  apartment;  and  when  the  committee  arose, 
a  message  was  sent  about  the  same  time,  that  the  committee 
had  concluded  to  rise  and  open  the  doors,  requested  that  the 
doors  might  be  opened.  The  representatives  were  in  the 
house,  sitting  with  closed  shutters,  and  as  soon  as  tlicy  knew 
that  the  committee  had  adjourned,  they  came  in  and  took 


178 


Trial  of  Friends 


their  seats.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  had  been  determined  to 
exclude  certain  members  of  the  society?  I  believe  I  was  not 
with  the  committee  of  door-keepers;  but  I  know  it  isa  senti- 
ment that  has  long  prevailed,  that  those  who  are  disowned, 
or  in  any  way  under  dealing,  have  no  right  to  be  admitted. 
If  they  had  been  disowned  on  any  ground,  it  was  your  opinion, 
that  they  should  be  excluded  from  admittance?  Not  from 
the  mere  matter  of  disownment. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — Witness  never  saw  a  Yearly 
Meeting  at  that  place  without  the  steps  being  crowded,  and 
some  old  men,  being  hard  of  hearing,  were  in  the  practice  of 
taking  their  seats  on  the  steps.  He  had  seen  persons  take  their 
seats  on  the  steps  a  considerable  time  before  meeting  opened. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Hubbard. — Is  it  customary  to  fill  the  galle- 
ries and  high  seats,  as  in  this  instance?  Did  you  ever  before 
know  persons  to  get  seated,  as  in  this  instance?  There  were 
a  large  number  from  other  Yearly  Meetings,  who  took  their 
seats;  perhaps  something  like  thirty  men;  the  high  scats  were 
not  exclusively  occupied  by  orthodox.  I  saw  Israel  Updegraff 
there,  and  T  think  I  saw  him  endeavour  to  push  a  Friend  off 
the  steps  in  the  early  part  of  the  contest. 

David  Steer  recalled  by  the  prosecutors. — Witness  stated,  that 
he  did  not  refuse  John  Smith  admission  into  the  house,  nor 
did  he  recollect  seeing  him  that  day.  He  was  positive  that 
he  did  not  stop  him. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Did  you  not  attempt  to  stop 
him,  or  did  you  not  put  your  hands  across  the  door?  I  did 
not  see  him  that  day.  I  allude  to  John  Smith,  of  Flushing 
Monthly,  and  Short  Creek  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Dr.  William  Judkins  affirmed,  for  the  prosecution.- — Were  you 
at  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  was.  We  wish  to  know  if  you  rais- 
ed the  alarm  that  the  galleries  were  falling?  I  did  not  raise 
any  alarm,  to  my  recollection.  I  had  no  idea  connected  with 
the  falling  of  the  galleries;  for  I  was  in  a  situation,  where  it 
was  impossible  to  see  the  galleries,  or  the  railing  around 
them;  and  my  attention  was  so  taken  up,  that  I  had  not  the 
most  distant  idea  of  such  a  thing.  It  had  not  come  into  my 
imagination,  till  I  heard  the  alarm  above:  but,  after  I  heard 
it,  and  the  crowd  was  rushing  down,  I  might  have  mention- 
ed it.  Do  you  recollect  seeing  William  Dilworth  on  the 
stairs,  at  the  time  of  the  alarm?  I  was  knocked  out  of  the 
window  from  the  stair  steps,  in  a  minute's  time  after  the 
alarm  was  given.  I  heard  a  board  crack,  or  something  of  the 
kind,  and  some  one  called  out,  the  galleries  are  falling,  and  in 
a  moment,  the  crowd  was  coming  down  upon  us,  and  carried 
nie  out  of  the  window.  I  was  standing  on  the  steps,  and  had 
been  most  of  the  time  previous  to  the  alarm. 

Cross-examination. — Did  you  not  say  that  the  railing  was 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


\79 


sprung?  T  went  to  the  place,  on  the  day  before  yesterday,  and 
I  find,  from  the  position  whicli  I  had  occupied,!  could  have 
seen  neither  the  galleries,  nor  the  railing;  it  might  have  been 
mentioned,  as  they  were  rushing  down  upon  me — it  is  possi- 
ble I  might  have  said,  the  galleries  are  falling.  When  the 
crack  was  heard,  the  alarm  was  instantaneous.  If  there  had 
been  no  voice  connected  with  the  crack,  I  should  not  have 
taken  it  for  any  thing  serious.  I  was  pushed  out  instantly, 
and  had  my  hand  cut  with  the  glass  of  the  window.  Did  you 
jump  out?  I  did  not  jump;  I  think  I  was  pushed  out,  by  the 
crowd  coming  down.  Did  you  light  upon  your  feet?  I  had  a 
cloak  on,  and  as  I  was  going  down,  some  of  the  crowd  step- 
ped upon  it,  so  that  it  was  drawn  nearly  off,  before  it  gave  way, 
and  when  it  slipped,  I  came  down,  cloak  and  all  together. 

James  Heald  affirmed. — I  was  at  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and 
was  placed  in  the  station  of  guard,  by  the  trustees  of  the  pro- 
perty of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  I  do  not  know  that  they  gave 
me  any  special  direction.  My  business  was  to  take  care  of 
the  house,  and  see  that  it  was  not  injured. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Tappan. — Did  you  stay  in  the  house  all 
night  previous  to  Second-day  morning?  I  did,  with  a  little 
exception,  Avhile  I  took  supper.  How  many  were  with  you?  I 
think  there  were  twelve  or  fourteen,  perhaps  sixteen.  What 
was  the  object?  was  it  to  keep  the  Hicksites  from  breaking  in, 
and  taking  forcible  possession?  Yes.  You  meant  to  keep  pos- 
session for  the  orthodox?  We  meant  to  keep  possession  for 
the  society  of  Friends.  Then  you  call  the  orthodox,  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends?  (Here,  the  witness  appearing  to  hesitate,  Mr. 
Wright  told  him  to  say.  Yes  or  No,  and  the  witness  answered. 
No.)  Do  you  consider  the  orthodox,  as  the  society,  or  not? 
Not  exclusively.  I  include  all  that  are  not  regularly  disown- 
ed or  on  the  minutes  of  the  meeting,  according  to  discipline. 
How  did  you  know  who  were  on  the  minutes  of  other  meet- 
ings than  your  own?  I  did  not  know,  I  did  not  expect  to  ex- 
clude those  that  I  did  not  know.  Whom  were  you  ordered  to 
exclude?  Such  as  I  have  mentioned,  such  as  were  disowned, 
or  under  dealing,  and  such  as  never  had  a  right  in  the  meet- 
ing. Had  you  a  list  of  all  these  ?  I  had  a  list  from  our  Month- 
ly Meeting,  but  not  from  the  other  meetings. 

You  made  proclamation  in  the  meeting,  that  you  were  the 
owner  of  the  house  ?  I  do  not  recollect  making  a  proclama- 
tion, that  I  owned  the  house.  Who  were  the  trustees,  or 
men,  who  put  you  in  charge  of  the  house?  Jonathan  Taylor 
and  James  Kinsey.  Did  you  exclude  James  Tolerton,  or  pre- 
vent his  entering  the  house?  I  did  not  stand  at  the  door  my- 
self; being  put  in  possession  of  the  property,  I  left  the  door. 
Did  you  order  James  Tolerton  out?  I  do  not  recollect  saying 
any  thing  to  him.    Did  you  stay,  through  the  whole  sitting  of 


180 


Trial  of  Friends 


the  Yearly  Meeting?  Yes,  I  stuck  by  it.  Did  you  ever  know 
a  meeting  house  garrisoned  on  any  former  occasion  ?  No. 
Did  you  stay  there  all  night,  during  the  sitting  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting?  No,  I  did  not,  after  First-day  night.  What  instruc- 
tion did  the  trustees  give  you  ?  I  have  answered  that  before— 
they  gave  me  no  instruction. 

Jonathan  Taylor  recalled.  Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — Can 
you  tell  who  it  was  that  opened  the  door  in  the  gallery?  I  am 
pretty  positive  it  was  Jacob  Richards.  When  Isaac  James 
was  getting  over  the  railing-,  into  the  ministers'  gallery,  Ben- 
jamin W.  Ladd  may  have  pushed  him  a  little,  but  I  do  not 
think  it  was  very  forcibly.  If  he  had  attempted  to  force  him 
down,  I  think  I  should  have  seen  it.  As  well  as  I  can  recol- 
lect, after  the  short  pause  which  has  been  mentioned,  I  began 
to  prepare  my  papers,  and  while  in  that  act,  Israel  French 
made  a  proposition,  and  I  believe,  whilst  they  were  speaking 
on  that  subject,  1  proceeded  to  read  the  opening  minute.  I 
think  it  was  before  Hilles  was  named  that  I  read  the  opening 
minute,  and  went  on  to  call  the  representatives ;  but  perhaps, 
before  I  was  through  calling  the  representatives,  they  went  on 
with  that  proposition. 

Was  there  any  request  or  proposition  for  you  to  surrender, 
to  give  up  the  papers,  or  for  the  meeting  to  come  to  order? 
I  believe  I  should  not  have  withdrawn  from  the  table,  if  Israel 
French  or  any  of  those  people  had  requested  me  to  go  from 
it.  If  the  meeting  had  taken  up  the  subject,  and  decided  it 
was  proper  for  me  to  leave  the  table,  I  should  have  done  it. 
Are  you  one  of  the  grantees  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  property? 
I  am. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Hubbard. — I  know  that  I  commenced 
reading  the  opening  minute  before  1  heard  the  sound  of  Hilles* 
name.  There  was  a  conference,  or  committee  from  the  dif- 
ferent Yearly  Meetings  on  this  continent.  There  were  two  or 
three  meetings  of  that  committee  at  Mount  Pleasant  Yearly 
Meeting  house.  There  was  no  understanding,  other  than  has 
been  stated  to  this  court  with  regard  to  those  persons  who 
were  disowned,  or  under  dealing — that  it  would  be  proper 
they  should  be  kept  out.  At  what  meeting  was  it  resolved  to 
garrison  the  meeting  house  over  night  ?  It  was  at  no  meeting, 
further  than  a  few  individuals,  who  thought  it  would  be  best. 
!  believe  I  was  one,  and  Elisha  Bates  another.  Was  Benja- 
min W.  Ladd  one?  I  can't  tell,  but  I  expect  he  was  in  unity 
with  it.  From  previous  conduct,  we  supposed  the  house 
would  be  broken  open.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the 
Hicksites  ever  attempting  to  bar  others  out?  I  do  not  know 
that  I  have  ever  seen  or  heard  any  thing  of  the  kind.  Has  it 
not  been  the  case  on  the  other  side?  I  never  knew  an  instance 
where  members  of  the  society  have  been  excluded,  unless  they 


at  Steubenvitle,  Ohio.  181 

were  disowned,  or  under  dealing.  Where  this  division  ex- 
tends through  the  Quarterly  and  Monthly  Meetings,  so  that 
they  have  separate  meetings,  are  not  those  who  do  not  meet 
with  the  orthodox,  pretty  generally  excluded?  I  believe  not, 
except  they  have  been  disowned  by  their  own  meetings. 

At  the  time  the  meeting  house  was  garrisoned,  it  was  not 
expected  there  would  be  an  attack?  It  was  strongly  suspected. 
Although  you  had  never  known  an  instance  of  attack?  Yes. 
Was  it  not  in  order  to  have  possession,  and  to  keep  out  the 
other  party?  That  was  not  my  understanding. 

Court  adjourned  till  2  o'clock. 

Tuesday,  October  21s/,  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 

The  examination  of  Jonathan  Taylor  continued  by  defendants' 
counsel.  Witness  is  positive,  that  it  was  Jacob  Richards  who 
opened  the  door.  He  saw  nobody  else  put  a  hand  there, 
but  him.  He  was  near  by,  and  with  his  back  to  the  door. 
Richards  came  over  his  left  side.  Is  not  positive  that  some 
other  might  not  have  taken  hold  of  it.  Cannot  be  pasitive 
whether  it  was  before  or  after  the  alarm.  Witness  Avas  alarmed 
for  the  moment,  but  it  was  soon  over.  He  was  not  out  of  the 
house,  to  see  how  many  there  were  outside.  The  alarm  ap- 
peared to  be  pretty  general.  Did  you  not  know  that  the  kneel- 
ing board  was  broken  or  cracked?  No,  I  did  not — I  took  it  to 
be  a  board  nailed  to  the  back  of  the  second  seat.  Witness  did 
not  recollect  hearing  any  thing  of  the  kind  in  the  gallery.  He 
believes  the  discipline  provides  that  members  shall  not  sue  one 
another,  and  go  to  law.  He  thinks  David  Hilles  was  a  regu- 
lar member  of  the  society,  at  the  time  this  suit  was  brought. 
Do  you  know  whether  this  suit  is  carried  on  at  the  expense  of 
the  witnesses?  I  know  nothing  about  any  regulation  in  relation 
to  the  costs.  Did  the  representatives  from  all  the  Quarters  an- 
swer to  your  call?  Yes,  from  all  the  Quarters.  1  think  there 
were  five  from  Redstone. 

Benjamin  W.  Ladd  recalled  by  counsel  for  the  prosecution.—' 
The  Judge  wished  to  know  what  was  to  be  proved  by  this 
witness. 

Mr.  Wright  said,  the  object  was  to  show  from  the  records  of 
the  meeting,  that  the  representatives  called  by  Taylor  were 
the  proper  delegates  from  their  respective  Quarters,  as  ap- 
peared by  the  reports  from  the  Quarters,  which  had  been 
adopted  by  the  meeting. 

The  Judge  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  go  into  testimony 
upon  the  subject.  It  had  never  been  disputed,  that  all  the  re- 
presentatives who  appeared,  were  representatives  from  those 
who  sent  them. 

Witness  proceeds. — Isaac  James  clambered  over  the  bench 
rails,  and  came  up  near  to  me.  He  was  the  first  person  who 
23 


182 


7 Via/  nf  Friends 


t^ot  into  tlu'  ministers'  q^alleiy.  The  proposition  was  made  to 
adjourn,  and  was  united  wiili,  by  a  number  of  persons,  not 
confining  it  to  the  representatives.  Then,  there  was  a  distinct 
proposition  made,  to  call  over  the  representatives,  to  see 
whether  they  united  or  not,  after  it  had  been  agreed  to  by  a 
number  of  voices.  I  am  not  clerk  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings, 
but  a  member  of  it.  I  was  one  of  the  committee  to  visit  all  the 
Quarterly  Meetings.  It  had  been  represented  to  the  Meeting 
for  Sufferings  that  some  opposition  had  been  made  to  advice 
from  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  embracing  a  part  of  the  Indi- 
ana epistle,  and  more  particularly  to  the  preface.  It  was  not 
considered  by  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  as  discipline,  but  ad- 
vice, as  it  was  represented  to  be.  I  stated  in  my  evidence,  that 
when  Isaac  Jam^s  came  to  the  last  raised  seat,  and  got  part  of 
his  breast  over,  that  I  did  there  meet  him,  and  oppose  his 
coming  over,  but  after  ho  came  over,  if  I  put  my  hands  on  him, 
I  must  have  lost  my  senses — I  do  not  believe  that  I  put  my 
hands  on  him  after  he  came  into  the  gallery. 

According  to  the  settled  order  of  the  society,  Isaac  James 
had  no  right  to  come  into  the  meeting,  and  much  less  into  the 
ministers'  gallery,  being  neither  a  minister  nor  elder,  and  being 
a  disowned  person.  I  should  suppose,  that  the  constitution 
and  discipline  governing  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  would 
give  them  power  for  the  appointment  of  committees  to  visit  the 
Quarters.  Here  the  witness  referred  to  llie  46th  and  47th  pages 
of  the  discipline,  and  said  he  could  state,  in  addition  to  the 
rules  of  discipline  he  referred  to,  that  there  were  others,  which 
seemed  to  give  a  general  power  to  represent  the  meeting  in 
general,  during  the  recess  of  the  Yearly  Meeting;  and  on  a  for- 
mer occasion,  committees  had  been  appointed  to  visit  Quarterly 
Meetings,  and  it  had  been  approved  by  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
This  appointment  was  some  years  ago,  and  the  objects  of  the 
appointment  arc  stated  in  the  minutes  of  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
I  attended  as  a  member  of  the  committee,  after  the  testimony 
of  advice  had  been  sent  down,  and  we  heard  there  was  a  dis- 
position not  to  comply  with  the  advice  issued  by  the  Meeting 
for  Sufferings. 

Mr.  Hubbard  proceeded  to  explain  as  follows: — We  suppose 
that  when  we  come  to  examine  the  book  of  discipline,  wc  shall 
find  by  the  whole  construction  of  the  Friends'  society  over  the 
whole  world,  it  has  been  a  fundamental  principle,  that  there 
should  be  existing  a  unity  of  religious  feeling  in  all  its  parts, 
and  in  all  tha  various  connexions,  from  the  Monthly  up  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting.  And  such  a  unity  and  connexion  existed  at 
the  time  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  1827;  embracing  all  those 
members  who  have  been  lately  turned  out,  and  who  have  be- 
come a  separate  party.  In  the  year  1827,  the  Yearly  Meeting 
of  Ohio  received  an  epistle  from  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  New 


at  Sleulietivillc,  Ohio. 


183 


York,  at  which  time  these  Yearly  Meetings  were  altogether 
undivided,  and  this  perfect  unity  still  existed. 

But  after  that,  owing  to  some  conduct  in  another  part  of  the 
United  States,  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  belonging  to  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting,  with  more  zeal  than  discretion,  adopted  an 
epistle,  issued  by  another  Yearly  Meeting,  which  goes  to  de- 
stroy the  unity  existing  between  this  Yearly  Meeting  and  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  New  York.  And  what  is  worse,  this  same 
advice  is  in  direct  contravention  to  principles  contained  in  the 
book  of  discipline;  and  being  sent  round  to  the  Monthly  and 
Quarterly  Meetings,  where  they  would  not  agree  to  it,  it  has 
been  the  means,  in  every  instance,  of  destroying  that  unity 
which  had  previously  existed  among  the  members  of  this  so- 
Qiety,  and  which  is  known  to  have  continued  till  1827.  And 
many  have  been  thrown  overboard,  which  has  produced  the 
division  now  existing  in  the  society. 

Tlie  examination  continued. — Can  you  state  how  many  minis- 
ters and  elders  attended  the  select  meeting  on  Sevenlh-day? 
About  one  hundred.  Do  you  not  know  that  others,  who  did 
not  believe  with  you,  were  barred  out?  None,  that  had  a  right 
to  attend,  were  hindered.  Was  there  no  hinderanco?  None, 
of  any  kind  whatever.  I  believe  that  some  of  the  eighteen  who 
staid  out  had  a  perfect  right  to  go  in,  but  there  were  some 
who  had  lost  their  stations,  by  the  laying  down  of  meetings  to 
which  they  belonged. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Wright. — Are  you  a  member  of  Smithfield 
Monthly  Meeting?  I  am.  How  many  members  are  there  be- 
longing to  that  Moiilhly  Meeting?  1  think  between  eighty 
and  ninety  families.  How  many  families  seceded  ?  I  do  not 
know  an  individual  family  in  Cross  Creek  Preparative  Meet- 
ing, but  in  Smithfield  there  may  be  between  ten  and  twenty. 

James  M''Bride  affirmed. — Witness  was  at  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing on  Second-day.  Was  there  any  opposition  to  John  Clea- 
ver's going  into  the  meeting?  There  was  no  opposition  made 
to  those  who  had  a  right;  but  some  would  not  go  in,  unless 
others  could  go  also,  who  were  in  their  company.  Jonathan 
Peirce  and  some  others  came  up  in  a  body,  about  the  lime 
that  Cleaver  was  at  the  door,  and  forced  us  all  out  of  the  door. 
Among  those  who  came  up,  M'as  Thomas  While.  He  had  a 
large  cane  or  slick,  which  he  held  up  in  an  erect  position, 
when  he  was  coming  to  the  door;  I  think  he  did  not  carry  it 
into  the  house,  when  he  went  in. 

Cross-examination. — I  think  Cleaver  was  inquired  of,  whether 
he  had  a  right,  and  it  was  said  that  he  had  a  right,  and  wc 
opened  the  way;  but  there  were  some  persons  inside,  who 
attempted  to  shut  the  door.  How  did  you  know  who  had  a 
right?  By  those  from  their  own  Quarterly  Meetings.  They 
were  not  stopped,  except  one  man  I  put  my  hand  on  him,  to 
ask  him  if  he  had  a  right.    The  doors  were  closed,  or  at- 


184 


Trial  of  Friends 


tempted  to  be  closed — can  you  tell  the  object?  I  catihot.  1 
do  not  know  that  they  were  barred.  Did  you  not  leave  guard- 
ing the  door,  to  help  about  the  table  ?  I  went  to  the  steps — I 
had  not  been  sitting,  during  the  meeting.  And  you  went  there 
to  sit  down?  I  do  not  know  that  I  went  there  to  sit  down;  but 
I  went  near,  because  I  had  a  desire  to  see  what  was  doing. 
You  went  out  of  curiosity?  I  cannot  say  that  it  was  curiosity, 
but  I  wished  to  see  the  movements.  Did  you  strip  off  your 
coat,  and  prepare  for  battle?    I  did  not. 

William  S.  Bales  affirmed. — I  was  not  far  from  William  B. 
Irish.  I  heard  him  nominate  David  Hilles  for  clerk,  and  in  a 
short  time  afterwards,  I  heard  some  one  unite  with  the  pro- 
position. I  turned  and  asked  who  it  was,  and  was  told  that 
it  was  William  B.  Irish.  Do  you  say  that  you  sav/  him  when 
he  united,  or  did  you  judge  only  by  the  sound  of  his  voice, 
that  he  united  more  than  once?  I  heard  him  make  the  nomi- 
nation, and  thought  by  the  sound  of  the  voice,  it  was  the  same 
one,  and  was  told  that  he  was  the  one. 

Nathan  Wood  affirmed. — Were  you  at  the  Yearly  Meeting  on 
Second-day  morning?  I  was  not  in,  early,  but  went  in  when 
there  appeared  to  b«  a  little  pause.  Witness  saw  Joshua  Cope 
unite  with  some  proposition  three  times;  but  did  not  know 
what  it  was.  He  also  saw  another  man  unite  three  times — it 
was  Daniel  Burt.  He  was  looking  at  one,  he  did  it  three 
times;  and  then  another  came  and  inquired  what  it  was,  and 
united  with  it.  Witness  supposed  it  was  uniting  in  a  clerk; 
but  did  not  himself  unite,  not  knowing  positively  what  propo- 
sition was  before  the  meeting. 

Elisha  Bates  again  called. — Have  you  the  cai-c  of  the  Yearly 
Meetinghouse?  I  had,  previous  to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  I 
was  present  when  the  trustees  agreed  to  put  James  Heald  in 
possession.  I  know  the  house  had  been  frequently  broken 
open  previous  to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  Bolts  had  been  broken, 
and  one  of  the  shutters  had  been  repeatedly  broken  open.  I 
know  that  a  few  weeks  previous  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  I  went 
into  the  meeting  house  pretty  late  in  the  evening,  and  I  saw 
two  persons  come  up  to  the  meeting  house;  they  shook  the 
doors,  and  inquired  of  me  if  any  additional  fastenings  had 
been  put  to  the  house — these  were  the  reasons  for  supposing 
that  they  would  attempt  to  break  it  open. 

Cross-examma/ion.— There  are  five  trustees;  three  agreed  to 
it,  one  is  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  the 
other  is  paralytic  and  disabled.  Do  you  know  Daniel  Burt? 
I  do.  Is  he  a  member  of  the  society?  I  have  never  heard  of 
his  being  disowned. 

Mr.  Wright  read  in  evidence  part  of  the  deed  of  trust. 

John  Smith  affirmed. — Were  you  at  the  Yearly  Meeting? 
Yes,    Was  it  attempted  to  prevent  your  entering  the  house? 


at  Sieubenville,  Ohio. 


18S 


It  was.  I  was  prevented  by  three  persons.  David  Steer  was 
one  of  them.  He  reached  forward  and  catched  me  by  the 
shoulder,  and  said,  "thou  hast  no  right  here."  What  was 
your  reply  to  him  ?  I  had  no  time  to  reply,  before  I  was  shoved 
in.  I  do  not  know  whether  Amos  Peaslee  was  there,  or  not. 
I  think  Elisha  Dawson  was  there.  The  principal  opposition 
was  from  David  Steer.  Do  you  know  Daniel  Burt  ?  I  do.  Is 
he  an  orthodox  member  ?    I  am  told  that  he  is. 

John  Hoyle  affirmed, — According  to  the  witness  just  up,  he 
must  have  come  to  the  door,  when  Peaslee  and  Dawson  came 
up.  Thomas  Shillitoe  was  in  supplication.  Here  witness 
described  the  circumstances  of  a  rush  into  the  house  at  the 
time  Peaslee  and  others  were  shoved  in.  He  explained  his  own 
position  at  that  time,  and  the  manner  in  which  his  hat  was 
squeezed  over  his  face,  by  Peaslee's  passing  partly  over  him. 
The  rush  was  half-way  across  the  house  in  a  minute;  but,  said 
the  witness,  there  was  no  such  talk  as  has  been  just  mentioned 
by  the  last  person  up,  not  a  word.  Witness  did  not  stop  Joseph 
Hoyle,  but  saw  him  at  a  considerable  distance,  and  wished  to 
tell  him  not  to  come  in;  but  he  pushed  through,  and  came 
right  in. 

Here  the  testimony  closed. 

Speech  of  John  M.  Goodnovt,  Esq. 

May  it  please  your  honour;  It  is  allotted  to  me,  to  open  the 
argument,  in  this  case,  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution;  and  I 
presume,  in  opening  this  argument,  it  will  not  be  thought 
amiss  for  me  to  consider  the  subject  somewhat  at  large.  The 
case  is  a  very  novel  one,  and  has  become  very  interesting  to 
the  community.  It  is  novel,  because  those  persons  concerned, 
either  as  witnesses  on  the  part  of  the  state,  or  on  the  part  of 
the  defendants,  and  the  defendants  themselves,  have  hereto- 
fore been  unused,  and  almost  entire  strangers  to  courts  of 
justice.  This  circumstance,  too,  places  your  honour,  as  well 
as  the  members  of  the  bar  who  are  concerned,  in  a  new 
attitude,  in  respect  to  the  matter  to  be  investigated.  It  is 
interesting,  as  it  develops,  in  the  course  of  its  proceeding, 
a  division,  which,  for  some  time,  has  been  known  to  exist  to 
a  considerable  extent,  in  a  society  that  has  for  180  years,  near 
two  centuries,  existed  as  an  ornament  to  every  community  in 
■which  it  has  been  located;  a  society  that  has  been  dislinguislied 
not  only  for  purity  of  principles,  but  as  universally  for  the 
rectitude  of  their  lives;  living  and  governing  themselves 
almost  exclusively  without  resort  to  the  civil  tribunals  of  the 
country,  settling,  in  a  most  amicable  manner,  according  to  the 
rules  of  their  great  leader,  or  Saviour,  whom  they  endeavour 
to  follow  in  precept  and  discipline,  all  disputes  which  may 
have  arisen  in  the  society;  so  much  so,  that  it  had  become  a 


186 


Trial  of  Friendi- 


standing,  and  invariable  rule,  in  all  their  society,  that  to  go  to 
law  for  injuries  done  to  each  other  with  regard  to  temporal 
concerns,  was  sufficient  cause  for  exclusion  from  the  society. 

The  parties,  and  when  I  speak  of  parties,  the  gentlemen 
will  understand  me,  (and  I  ought  here  to  remark,  peradven- 
ture  I  may  be  misunderstood,  except  I  caution  my  brethren 
against  receiving,  and  the  court  also,  any  thing  other  than 
is  intended;  for  it  is  evident,  and  I  shall  not  deny  it,  that 
this  society  is  divided  into  two  parties:)  I  say  then,  as  to 
these  parties,  whether  they  be  witnesses  for  or  against  the 
prosecution,  or  spectators  barely,  they  are  highly  respectable; 
and  although  their  testimony  may  be  considered  as  conflict- 
ing, in  some  instances,  I  venture  to  say,  it  is  almost  entirely 
upon  matters  of  opinion,  or  with  regard  to  the  discipline  of 
which  they  speak,  and  their  views  upon  the  subject,  and  not 
in  matters  of  fact.  So  far  it  is  a  pleasant  reflection  to  the 
court,  and  all  concerned.  There  is,  and  will  be  found,  dis- 
crepancy as  to  time,  and  exaggeration,  in  some  instances,  as 
to  facts  themselves:  but  of  the  main  and  important  transac- 
tions testified  to,  there  is  nothing  to  lessen  the  credit  of  any 
of  the  witnesses. 

I  say,  then,  this  society,  and  all  concerned,  are  highly  re- 
spectable ;  and  the  names  which  are  necessary  for  us,  in 
this  investigation,  orthodox  and  Hicksite,  are  used  barely  as 
names  of  distinction,  and  are  to  be  taken  with  no  disrespect 
to  either  of  the  parties.  I  feel  it  my  duty  here  to  remark, 
with  regard  to  myself,  that  although  I  have  heretofore  had 
some  little  discussions  with  some  of  the  Friends,  it  was  upon 
one  tenet,  and  one  tenet  alone,  of  that  society,  which  has  no- 
thing to  do  in  this  case.  When  it  has  been  remarked,  that 
I  add  nothing  to  the  society,  I  repel  such  insinuations  witli 
indignation.  I  stand  here^  on  the  part  of  the  state,  in  support 
of  the  rights  of  the  society;  and  I  am  happy  here  to  say,  that 
I  glory  in  the  privilege,  both  in  a  religious  and  political  point 
of  view.  Were  I  the  umpire,  every  man  should  enjoy  his  opi- 
nions unmolested,  uninjured,  free  and  absolute,  beyond  all 
control.  I  am  bound  to  say,  also,  in  the  introduction  of  this 
case,  and  it  must  be  manifest,  and  1  wish  your  honour  to  con- 
sider the  remark,  this  suit  is  not  prosecuted  from  vindic- 
tive motives;  neither  for  love  of  wealth,  nor  love  of  power. 
It  is  prosecuted  solely  and  entirely  to  establish  the  position, 
whether  a  religious  society,  having  met  according  to  their 
usual  manner  of  doing  business,  are  subject  to  a  re-organiza- 
tion, to  use  the  term  employed  on  the  other  side;  whether 
they  are  subject  to  a  revolution,  by  power  and  force,  and  that 
beyond  any  redress  or  restoration  of  their  rights. 

I  have  no  doubt,  sir,  that  the  party  who  are  called  the  Hicks- 
iles,  as  well  as  the  party  called  the  orthodox,  have  approached 
this  trial,  with  pure  sentiments,  and  not  with  a  disposition 


at  Sieubenville^  Ohio. 


187 


existing  in  their  bosoms  to  create  disturbance,  to  create  revo- 
lutions and  disasters  in  our  community.  But  it  has  been 
known  from  the  earliest  ages  of  our  Christian  system,  and 
long  before,  as  it  respected  religious  comrnunities,  that  in  the 
party  strifes  of  religious  persons,  zeal,  frenzy,  and  heat,  are 
carried  to  the  very  highest  pitch  :  and  the  reason  is  as  appa- 
rent as  any  other  by  which  the  human  mind  is  operated.  The 
feelings,  principles,  and  devotional  considerations  of  man,  to 
his  Maker,  are  seated  in  the  heart :  they  come  from  the  warm- 
est part  of  the  system;  and  when  he  feels  himself  there  injured, 
he  feels  himself  more  deeply  injured  than  in  any  other  way. 
The  zeal,  therefore,  with  which  either  of  these  parties  may 
have  acted,  may  be  a  zeal  not  correctly  and  judiciously  guided. 
»■  I  shall  now  consider  the  state  of  the  question:  and  shall,  in 

the  course  of  my  investigation  of  this  matter,  endeavour  to 
consider  it  in  six  points  of  view,  or,  rather,  under  six  positions. 

1.  The  broad  consideration,  what  is  the  state  of  the  ques- 
tion before  your  honour? 

2.  In  the  next  place,  I  shall  inquire  into  the  ecclesiastical 
polity  of  this  society. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  were  they  regularly  assembled,  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statute,  for  worship,  or  duties  pertaining 
to  them,  as  members  of  a  religious  society? 

4.  If  so  assembled,  were  they  disturbed  and  molested? 

5.  By  whom  were  they  disturbed? 

6.  Were  these  defendants  engaged  in  the  disturbance? 

I  will  say  now,  to  prevent  misunderstanding,  as  I  shall  pass 
over  these  different  positions,  that  I  may  be  subject  to  the 
reflection,  that  I  have  passed  over  testimoniy  that  I  ought 
to  have  mentioned,  as  a  great  part  of  the  testimony  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  question  now  to  be  decided.  I  shall, 
thei-efore,  throughout  my  whole  view,  do  it  rather  in  the 
general,  leaving  it  for  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  to  apply 
the  isolated  facts,  which  they  shall  consider  most  conducive  to 
their  exculpation.  I  will  therefore  read  without  comment, 
the  8th  article,  3d  section,  Ohio  constitution,  (22d  vol.  Ohio 
statutes,  24.) 

"  That  all  men  have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  Almighty 
God  according  to  the  dictate  of  conscience;  that  no  human  authority  can, 
in  any  case  whatever,  control  or  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience; 
that  no  man  shall  be  compelled  to  attend,  erect,  and  support  any  place  of 
worship,  or  to  maintain  any  ministry  against  his  consent;  and  that  no  pre- 
ference shall  ever  be  given,  by  law,  to  any  religious  society  or  mode  of 
worship,  and  no  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any 
office  of  trust  or  profit." 

In  vain  have  the  framers  of  our  constitution  placed  this 
provisional  limit,  in  vain  do  we  refer  to  it,  in  vain  boast  of 
it,  except,  by  the  legislative  power  of  the  state,  provision  has 


188 


Trial  of  Friends 


been  made  to  secure  the  benefits  and  rights  of  conscience 
to  those  over  whom  the  government  spreads  its  shield.  I 
consider  that  the  law,  under  which  this  act  is  to  be  tried,  i& 
framed  und^r  that  section  of  the  constitution. 

"If  any  person  or  persons  shall  at  any  time  interrupt  or  molest  any  reli- 
gious society,  or  any  member  thereof,  or  any  persons  when  meeting'  or  met 
together  for  the  purpose  of  worship,  or  performing  any  duties  enjoined  on,, 
or  appertaining  to  them,  as  members  of  such  society,  the  person  op  person* 
so  offending,  may  be  arrested  on  warrant,  legally  issued,  or  by  the  order  o£ 
some  civil  officer  within  the  county,  on  view  or  hearing,"  &c. — (22  Ohio- 
Statutes,  196.) 

It  may  be  necessary,  for  one  moment,  to  inquire  who  are 
embraced  in  this  section,  as  constituting  a  religious  society. 
Although  it  may  not  be  necessary  to  the  present  question, 
nevertheless  it  may  be  necessary,  should  a  doubt  exist,  whether 
this  society,  under  these  circumstances,  and  existing  by  the 
polity  that  it  does,  comes  within  the  meaning  of  the  section  I 
have  quoted.  My  view  of  it  is,  that  it  was  intended  not  only 
to  protect  all  and  every  religious  society  in  their  public  wor- 
ship and  discipline,  but  that  it  was  to  meet  the  cases  or  acts 
not  provided  for  in  our  other  criminal  statutes.  We  have  a 
statute,  immediately  preceding  this,  for  the  punishment  of 
crimes,  and  another  for  the  punishment  of  minor  offences. 
There  are  divers  statutes  that  seem,  at  first  view,  to  cover  the 
whole  ground  of  evil,  that  necessarily  exists  in  our  civil  state: 
but  those  in  fact,  like  the  one  now  before  the  court,  were  not 
embraced  by  any  of  our  statutes.  Our  legislature  had  some 
object  in  view  when  they  enacted  this  law.  They  thought 
that  cases  might  possibly  arise  in  the  stale,  to  which  the  ex- 
isting laws  did  not  apply.  There  were  laws  against  assault 
and  battery,  riots,  maiming,  housebreaking,  and  against  every 
kind  of  evil  that  may  be  committed  towards  the  community, 
except  some  certain  immoral  practices  embraced  in  this  sta- 
tute; and  this,  it  may  be  remembered,  reaches  the  case  of 
blasphemy;  and  it  reaches  divers  other  cases,  such  as  nine-pin 
alleys,  billiard  playing,  8cc. ; — it  was  meant  to  meet  all  those 
cases  which  other  laws  did  not  meet.  And  I  cannot  imagine 
a  case,  myself,  in  which  this  section  could  be  applied,  and 
correctly  applied,  if  it  be  not  just  such  a  case  as  happened  at 
Mount  Pleasant.  When  I  say  this,  I  do  not  say  that  this  sta- 
tute was  intended  to  meet  these  defendants.  But  there  was  a 
disturbance;  there  was  a  religious  society  met  there  for  dis- 
cipline:— there  was  a  disturbance,  and  some  person  is  wrong; 
some  one  has  committed  a  crime  which  this  statute  intended 
to  embrace  and  punish. 

To  ascertain  then,  what  a  religious  society  is,  may  be  a 
matter  for  inquiry.  It  is,  in  this  case,  of  vast  importance  to 
ascertain  what  constitutes  this  religious  society.    I  venture  to 


at  Steubeiii-ille,  Obir. 


189 


say,  that  our  inquiry  is  directed  at  large — what  will  consti- 
tute a  society?  And  how  we  are  to  know  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions by  which  they  govern  themselves?  We  have  in  our 
community,  various  denominations  of  Christians,  who  have  as- 
sociated themselves  together,  and  established  their  code  of 
law,  and  who  consider  themselves  bound  as  much  by  that 
code  of  law,  in  the  transactions  in  which  they  are  engaged, 
as  they  do  by  the  municipal  laws  of  the  laud.  It  is  then  of  no 
consequence  what  the  society  is  called  :  you  may  call  it  by  the 
name  society,  congregation,  church,  or  what  you  please,  and 
the  very  idea  implies  law  and  regulation — no  matter  whether 
that  law  be  a  written  or  an  unwritten  code.  It  may  be  the 
more  difficult,  when  unwritten,  to  ascertain  what  it  is;  but  if  it 
be  ascertained,  it  is  the  same,  whether  written  or  unwritten. 
It  must  be  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  state  and  the  con- 
stitution. It  cannot  be  binding  on  individuals,  if  it  be  not 
consistent  with  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  state.  But 
their  discipline,  when  conformable  to  these,  is  as  binding  and 
obligatory  as  the  laws  themselves;  and  when  thus  constituted, 
the  law  does  protect  them. 

I  have  presented  the  constitution,  which  is  the  paramount 
rule  and  protection.  Every  person  is  protected  in  the  rights 
of  conscience,  and  in  the  right  of  worshipping,  according  to 
his  own  mind  and  pleasure.  He  never  could  enjoy  that  privi- 
lege unless  the  laws  guaranteed  it  to  him,  by  protecting  him 
and  his  associates  in  any  system,  no  matter  what,  not  incon- 
sistent with  those  laws.  And  when  they  are  formed  consist- 
ently with  the  statute,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  government  to 
protect  them,  or  their  right  is  a  nugatory  and  useless  one.  It 
has  been  supposed  by  some, — and  I  was  once  in  a  place  where 
I  was  publicly  accused  of  wishing  to  blend  church  and  state. 
Now,  it  is  directly  the  contrary  system  which  I  advocate  ;  for 
wherever  the  rights  of  conscience  are  protected  ;  wherever  civil 
society  secures  to  any  number  of  individuals  their  free  mode 
of  worship,  there  the  state  can  never  blend  itself  with  the 
church.  There  it  will  never  seek  to  blend  itself.  It  is  where 
religious  societies  are  not  protected,  that  they  seek  protection 
under  the  arm  of  power.  In  this  instance,  they  are  not  seek- 
ing ])rotection  against  the  privileges  of  any  other.  They  are 
not  seeking  the  arm  of  the  state  in  reference  to  any  other. 
But  they  are  seeking  protection  of  equal  rights.  It  is  all  they 
ask. 

Now  we  know,  to  illustrate  the  position  which  we  have 
taken,  that,  till  about  the  close  of  the  third  century  of  the 
Christian  era,  and  the  reign  of  the  Constautincs,  the  church 
was  not  connected  with  the  state,  and  that  all  difhculties  then 
existing  in  the  Christian  church  were  reconciled  among 
themselves.  We  know  that  a  diversitv  of  faith  and  tenets, 
24 


190 


Trial  of  Friends 


tlid  not  create  a  diversity  of  discipline.  It  was  only  where 
the  Coiistantines  seized  the  power  of  the  bishops,  that  the 
Christian  society  was  split.  It  was  then,  and  it  will  always 
be  the  case,  whenever  the  power  of  the  state  undertakes  to 
control  the  aftairs  of  the  church,  that  a  connexion  will  be 
formed.  Is  it  not  then  clear,  to  every  person,  who  will  reflect 
for  a  moment,  that  the  protection  of  every  individual  in  his 
own  way,  is  the  best  means  possible,  to  prevent  the  blending 
of  civil  and  religious  concerns  ? 

And  I  would  observe,  since  I  have  alluded  to  the  early  state 
of  the  Christian  church,  that  we  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude,  that 
we  should  never  cease  to  contemplate  and  remember,  to  our 
ancestors.  For  it  is  in  this  country  alone,  upon  the  face  of 
this  globe,  that  the  rights  of  conscience  are  known.  It  was 
by  that  revolution — it  was  that  arm  of  human  power,  under 
the  auspices  of  heaven,  which  severed  our  government  from 
that  of  England,  and  secured  to  us  our  rights.  It  was  by  that 
revolution  that  the  people  of  this  country  were  restored,  not 
only  to  their  political  rights,  but  to  their  religious  freedom. 
I  wish  and  desire,  and  shall  pray,  while  I  have  the  power  of 
prayer,  that  no  decision  shall  be  made,  by  this  or  any  other 
court,  that  shall  ever  impair  these  rights.  I  hope  I  shall 
never  live  long  enough  to  see  the  day,  when  an  inquisition 
shall  be  established,  or  when  any  man  shall  be  asked,  in  a 
court  of  justice,  before  he  receives  his  just  due,  to  what  sect 
or  tenet  he  belongs;  whether  to  the  trinity  or  unity.  And  I 
say,  the  question  before  the  court  does  not  involve  the  tenets 
of  this  people;  we  have  only  to  do  with  their  discipline.  And 
here  let  me  repeat,  that  an  ecclesiastical  polity  or  system  of 
discipline,  to  govern  a  body  of  Christians,  is  one  thing:  it  is 
entirely  distinct  from  their  tenets.  It  is  like  the  regulations 
of  a  corporation  or  association.  It  is  for  the  management  of 
the  temporal  concerns  of  the  society.  And  no  society,  con- 
gregation, or  community,  can  exist,  except  they  have  these 
regulations. 

I  will  then  inquire,  what  is  the  polity  or  system  of  disci- 
pline of  this  society.  We  must  go  up  to  the  source,  before  we 
can  determine  the  question,  whether  a  religious  assembly  was 
there  convened.  It  is  necessary  to  go  into  the  inquiry,  what, 
in  fact,  constitutes  the  Yearly  Meeting.  And  to  do  this,  we 
must  mount  up  to  the  source  of  this  society,  to  its  first  or- 
ganization, to  the  foundation  stone.  For  each  of  those  socie- 
ties which  compose  this  Yearly  Meeting,  has  its  officers,  has 
its  rules  and  its  regulations — has  its  distinct  code  of  govern- 
ment, or  rather  a  code  of  government  not  distinct  from  the 
main  body,  but  has  rules  by  which  its  affairs  are  governed. 
And  every  branch  or  subordinate  society  which  helps  to  con- 


at  Steubtnville^  Ohio. 


191 


stUute  this  Yearly  Meeting,  is  as  distinctly  and  clearly  regu- 
lated as  any  corporation  in  the  community. 

In  the  first  place,  I  will  inquire  what  is  a  Monthly  Meeting; 
for  we  have  been  informed  that  the  Monthly,  Quarterly,  and 
Yearly  Meetings,  are  the  great  bodies  of  the  Quaker  commu- 
nity. I  would  then  refer  your  honour  to  the  first  volume  of 
Clarkson,  whose  work  is  considered  a  faithful  delineation  of 
the  principles  and  discipline  of  the  society:  and  as  this  is  a 
novel  subject,  perhaps  I  do  not  waste  time  in  examining  the 
organization  and  discipline  of  this  society  at  large,  that  we 
may  be  more  clearly  satisfied  in  the  opinions  which  we  already 
entertain,  while  we  may  possibly  acquire  some  ideas  that  we 
have  not. 

■"The  Quakers  usually  divide  a  county  into  a  number  of  parts,  accord- 
ing to  the  Quaker  population  of  it.  In  each  of  these  divisions  there  are 
usually  several  meeting  houses,  and  these  have  their  several  congregations 
attached  to  them.  One  meeting  house,  however,  in  each  division,  is  usually 
fixed  upon  for  transacting  the  business  of  all  the  congregations  that  are 
within  it,  or  for  holding  their  Montlily  Courts.  The  different  congrega- 
tions of  the  Quakers,  or  the  members  of  the  difterent  particular  meetings, 
which  are  settled  in  the  northern  part  of  the  county,  are  attached  of  course 
to  the  meeting  house  which  has  been  fixed  upon  in  the  northern  division 
of  it,  because  it  gives  them  the  least  trouble  to  repair  to  it  on  this  occasion. 
The  members  of  those  again  which  are  settled  in  the  soutliern,  or  central, 
or  other  parts  of  the  county,  are  attached  to  that  which  has  been  fixed  in 
the  southern,  or  central,  or  other  divisions  of  it,  for  the  same  reason.  The 
different  congregations  in  the  northern  division  of  the  county  appoint,  each 
of  them,  a  set  of  deputies  once  a  montii,  which  deputies  are  of  both  sexes,  to 
repair  to  the  meeting  house  which  has  been  assigned  them.  The  different 
congregations,  in  the  southern,  central,  or  other  divisions,  appoint  also,  each 
of  them,  others,  to  repair  to  that  which  has  been  assigned  them  in  like 
manner.  These  deputies  are  all  of  them  previously  instructed  in  the  matters 
belonging  to  the  congregations  which  they  respectively  represent.  At 
length  the  day  arrives  for  the  Monthly  Meeting.  The  deputies  make 
ready  to  execute  the  duties  cominitted  to  their  trust." — (1  Clarkson,  206, 
7,8.) 

There  are  also  Preparative  Meetings,  which  are  subdivisions 
of  a  Monthly  Meeting.  The  court  will  understand  it,  more 
distinctly,  by  seeing  the  connexion  between  the  two.  And 
here  I  will  read  from  the  discipline. 

"The  connexion  and  subordination  of  our  meetings  for  discipline  are 
thus:  Preparative  Meetings  are  accountable  to  the  Monthly;  Monthly  to 
the  Quarterly;  and  Quarterly  to  the  Yearly  Meeting:  so  that  if  the  Yearly 
Meeting  be  at  any  time  dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  of  any  inferior 
meetings;  or  a  Quarterly  Meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its 
Monthly  Meetings;  or  a  Monthly  Meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of 
its  Preparative  Meetings;  such  meetings  ought,  with  readiness  and  meek- 
ness, to  render  accounts  thereof  when  required;  and  correct  or  expunga 
any  of  the  minutes,  according  to  the  direction  of  the  superior  meeting." — 
{Book  of  Discipline  of  Ohio  Y.  M.  28.) 

I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  Clarkson  upon  Quarterly 
Meetings. 


192 


7\ial  of  Friends 


'•In  the  same  manner  as  the  different  congregations  in  a  small  division 
oTa  county  have  been  shown  to  have  sent  deputies  to  the  respective  Montlily 
Meetings  within  it;  so  the  different  Monthly  Meetings,  in  the  same  county, 
send  each  of  them  deputies  to  the  Quarterly.  Two  or  more  of  each  sex  are 
generally  deputed  from  each  Monthly  Meeting.  The=e  deputies  are  sup- 
posed to  have  understood,  at  the  Monthly  Meeting  where  they  were  chosen, 
all  the  matters  which  the  discipline  required  them  to  know  relative  to  the 
state  and  condition  of  their  constituents.  Furnished  with  this  knowledge, 
and  instructed  moreover  by  written  documents  on  a  variety  of  subjects, 
they  repair  at  a  proper  time  to  the  place  of  meeting." — (1  Clarkson,  214.) 

I  also  will  read  from  the  discipline  of  the  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting. 

"  It  is  directed  that  a  suitable  number  of  Friends  be  appointed,  in  each 
Monthly  Meeting,  representatives,  to  attend  the  service  of  the  Quarterly 
Meeting,  with  such  reports  in  writing,  signed  by  the  clerk,  as  may  be  given 
them  in  charge:  also,  tliat  at  least  four  Friends  be  appointed  for  the  like 
service,  in  each  Quarterly  Meeting,  to  attend  the  Yearly  Meeting.  And 
it  is  earnestly  advised  and  desired,  that  all  Friends  who  submit  to  these 
important  services,  may  be  punctual  in  their  attendance;  or  if  prevented  by 
sickness,  or  any  other  unavoidable  occurrence,  that  they  be  careful  to  send 
information  thereof;  also,  that  those  wlio  are  under  appointments  to  attend 
meetings  as  representatives,  do  not  withdraw  therefrom  before  the  conclu- 
sion of  such  meetings,  without  obtaining  the  consent  thereof." — {Book  of 
Discipline,  30,  31.) 

This  shows  the  chain  of  supervisoi  y  power  in  each  superior, 
over  the  subordinate  meetings.  And  to  show  that  the  system 
is  a  full  and  complete  system  of  civil  government,  with  re- 
spect to  themselves,  I  will  read  to  the  court  one  thing  further. 

"The  clerk  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  when  they  come  to  this  part  of 
the  business,  reads  tlie  first  of  the  appointed  queries  to  the  members  pre- 
sent, and  is  then  silent.  Soon  after  this,  a  deputy  from  one  of  the  Monthly 
Meetings  comes  forward,  and  producing  the  written  documents,  or  answers 
to  the  queries,  all  of  which  were  prepared  at  the  meeting  where  he  was 
chosen,  reads  that  document  which  contains  a  reply  to  the  first  query,  in  be- 
half of  the  meeting  he  represents.  A  deputy  from  a  second  Monthly  Meet- 
ing then  comes  forward,  and  produces  his  written  documents  also,  and  an- 
swers the  same  query  in  behalf  of  his  own  meeting  in  the  same  manner.  A 
deputy  from  a  third,  where  there  are  more  than  two  meetings,  then  pro- 
duces his  documents  in  his  turn,  and  replies  to  it  also;  and  this  mode  is  ob- 
served, till  all  the  deputies  from  each  of  the  Monthly  Meetings  in  the  county 
have  answered  the  first  query.  When  the  first  query  has  been  thus  fully 
answered,  silence  is  observed  through  the  whole  court.  Members  present 
have  now  an  opportunity  of  making  any  observations  they  may  think  pro- 
per."—(1  Clarkson,  219.) 

I  would  observe,  however,  as  I  may  not  refer  to  it  in  the 
book,  that  in  England,  where  there  is  but  one  Yearly  Meeting, 
there  are  queries  sent  down  to  the  Quarterlies,  and  so  down 
to  the  Monthly  Meetings,  by  and  through  which,  they  ascer- 
tain, officially,  of  the  compliance  or  non-compliance  of  sub- 
ordinates and  members  with  the  discipline.  To  different 
meetings,  there  are  different  inquiries;  different  in  number, 
different  in  object,  and  requiring  different  answers. 


at  Steuhenville^  Ohio. 


193 


Here  I  would  remark,  that  the  discipline  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting  at  Mount  Pleasant,  is  perhaps,  in  some  particulars, 
not  in  exact  accordance  with  the  views  of  Clarkson.  But  in 
the  main,  it  is  the  same.  For  instance,  they  may  not  require 
or  observe  the  exact  regularity  of  reading  the  queries — read- 
ing one,  and  requiring  an  answer.  But  the  discrepancy,  if  any, 
is  barely  in  some  of  the  details  of  doing  business. 

It  may  be  well  here  to  say,  that  Clarkson  speaks  as  every 
other  man  would  speak,  who  is  not  a  member  of  the  society, 
or  who  has  not  accustomed  himself  to  their  language.  He 
speaks  of  these  meetings  as  courts,  and  they  are  to  be  taken 
and  treated  as  courts,  in  which  we  shall  see,  by  and  by,  that 
there  are  duties  devolving  on  the  representatives,  constituting 
the  great  court  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  And  we  shall  also  see, 
by  referring  back  to  another  page  of  Clarkson,  that  the  names 
of  the  representatives  are  always  entered  in  a  book  in  the 
men's  meeting,  and  the  same  in  the  women's  meeting.  The 
names  are  first  entered  in  a  book,  and  until  this  takes  place, 
the  meeting  for  discipline  is  not  to  be  considered  as  consti- 
tuted. 

"  In  the  men's  [Monthly]  Meeting,  and  it  is  the  same  in  the  women's,  the 
names  of  the  deputies  before  mentioned  are  first  entered  in  a  book,  for  until 
this  act  takes  place,  the  meetinb  for  discipline  is  not  coNsiDsnED  to  be 
coNSTiTtiTED." — (1  Clurlison,  208.) 

There  is  another  question  arising  upon  this  discipline,  which 
it  is  necessary  that  we  should  fortify  with  authorities^  al- 
though the  gentlemen  have  found  themselves  in  the  need  of 
acknowledging  to  us,  that  these  meetings  for  discipline  were 
always  considered  as  select,  to  which  none  but  members  in 
standing,  not  disowned,  or  not  under  dealing,  were  admitted 
to  attend.    This  is  provided  for  in  the  book  of  discipline. 

"  It  is  the  judgment  of  the  Yearly  Meeting-,  that  elders,  overseers,  and 
others  concerned  for  the  support  of  the  discipline,  exercise  a  care  that  our 
meetings  for  business  be  kept  select,  not  permitting  those  who  have  not  a 
right  of  membership  among  us  to  sit  in  those  meetings." — {Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, 30;  see  also  page  80,  same  book.) 

I  shall  now,  as  I  am  approaching  the  Yearly  Meeting,  ex- 
amine, if  the  court  please,  to  see  what  authority  and  power 
the  representatives  of  that  meeting  hold.  It  has  been  con- 
tended on  the  other  side,  and  will  be  urged,  that  that  meeting 
is  a  pure  democracy;  that  no  one  member  has  a  preference 
over  another  as  to  the  decision,  rule,  and  government  of  the 
meeting:  that  there  is  no  power  existing  in  any  shape,  in  any 
one  member,  whether  representative,  clerk,  minister,  aged  or 
young,  over  another.  We  will  inquire,  because  it  is  only  by 
reference  to  the  long  established  usages,  or  the  statutes  or 
ordinances  adopted  by  this  meeting,  or  by  the  mouth  of  wit- 
nesses, that  we  are  to  establish  these  facts.  And  there  is  a 
direct  accordance  between  the  testimony  before  you,  and  the 


194 


Trial  of  Friends 


statutes  and  ordinances  of  the  society,  as  to  what  does  consti- 
tute a  Yearly  Meeting,  and  whether  a  representative  has  any 
authority  in  the  incipient  stages,  result,  or  ulterior  resort. 

Now,  Clarkson  has  some  remarks  upon  the  subject,  although 
I  must  say,  we  find  in  him,  as  we  find  in  our  law  books  often, 
a  question,  almost  self-evident  in  itself,  never  agitated,  but 
presenting  itself  to  the  reason  of  man,  connected  with  the 
nature  and  general  scope  of  the  discipline,  which  has  never 
been  disputed,  never  spoken  of  as  a  disputed  point. 

"The  deputies,  who  are  now  generally  four  in  number  for  each  Quarterly 
Meeting,  that  is,  four  of  each  sex  (except  for  the  Quarterly  Meetings  of 
York  and  London,  the  former  of  which  generally  sends  eight  men,  and  the 
latter  twelve,  and  each  of  them  the  like  number  of  females,)  having  received 
their  different  documents,  set  forward  on  their  journey.  Besides  these, 
many  members  of  the  society  repair  to  the  metropolis.  The  distance  of 
three  or  four  hundred  miles  forms  no  impediment  to  the  journey.  A  man 
cannot  travel  at  this  time,  but  he  sees  tlie  Quakers  in  motion,  from  all 
parts,  shaping  their  course  to  London,  there  to  exercise,  as  will  appear 
shortly,  tiie  power  of  deputies,  judges,  and  legislators  in  turn,  and  to 
investigate  and  settle  the  affairs  of  the  society  for  the  preceding  year."— 
(1  Clarkson,  222.    See  also  book  of  Discipline,  30,  cited  anti.) 

"  This  meeting  [the  Yearly  Meeting  of  London]  is  constituted  of  re- 
presentatives deputed  from  each  Quarterly  Meeting  in  England,  from  the 
Half-Year's  Meeting  in  Ireland,  and  sometimes  from  other  parts,  yet  without 
restraining  any  member  in  unity  with  the  society  from  attending." — (2 
Gough'a  History,  164.) 

"  To  show  that  they  [the  Friends]  are  people  that  love  order  and  good 
government,  they  carefully  practise  it  themselves.  For  if  there  be  twenty 
meetings  of  worship  in  a  county,  they  peradventure  make  three  or  four 
Monthly  Meetings  of  business:  and  these  Monthly  Meetings  are  resolved 
into  a  Quarterly  Meeting  for  the  county,  by  such  members  as  they  severally 
appoint  to  constitute  it.  And  all  the  Quarterly  Meetings  in  the  nation,  by 
chosen  men  out  of  themselves,  do  constitute  one  Yearly  Meeting;  unto 
which,  the  meetings  of  those  people,  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  have  their 
recourse,  by  chosen  messengers  or  by  epistles." — {Penn's  works,  687.) 

It  does  seem  to  me,  if  the  court  please,  that  we  have  pro- 
duced ample  and  sufficient  authority  for  the  position  which 
we  took  in  the  opening  of  this  case,  that  the  representatives 
do,  in  fact,  substantially  constitute  the  Yearly  Meeting.  In 
accordance  with  these  authorities  we  have  offered  to  the  court 
the  testimony  of  Bates,  Ladd,  Taylor,  Stanton,  and  others,  as 
worthy  of  credit  as  any  men  in  the  community,  who  have  been 
trained  up  from  their  birth  in  the  discipline  of  this  society, 
and  who  have  not  now,  and  never  have  had,  cause  for  saying 
to  this  court,  other  of  their  discipline  than  the  truth.  And 
they  pronounce  to  you,  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  constituted, 
substantially,  of  the  representatives  from  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ings: for  I  may  well  inquire  what  means  the  word  represen- 
tative— what  means  the  word  deputy?  They  arc  those  who  are 
instructed,  says  the  book,  and  who  are  supposed  to  under- 
stand, and  are  charged  with,  the  interests  of  their  constituents, 


u(  Steiibenville,  Ohio. 


195 


or  those  whom  they  represent.  Could  language  be  more  plain, 
except  it  were  to  say,  that  a  representative  means  one  who  is 
charged,  and  required  to  execute  his  charge,  as  an  agent,  as 
an  attorney,  as  a  delegate  from  one  meeting  to  a  superior  one. 
No  explanation  could  be  added  to  it.  Their  own  witness, 
Askew,  expressly  says,  that  Monthly  Meetings  are  represent- 
ed in  the  Quarter  by  their  representatives.  If  Monthly  Meet- 
ings are  represented  by  their  representatives,  by  whom  else  are 
the  Quarters  represented?  It  appears  to  me,  the  gentlemen 
have  mistaken  the  pole  of  their  system.  Now,  each  individual 
may  represent  himself  in  the  meeting; — that  we  do  not  deny. 
He  may  be  there  to  make  his  complaint,  or  to  oppose  mea- 
sures; or,  for  the  cause  of  truth,  he  may  be  there  a  sentinel  for 
his  own  rights;  but  he  is  not  there  as  a  representative  for  a 
subordinate  meeting  :  he  is  there  in  an  individual  capacity, 
and  in  such,  he  has  a  right  to  be  heard.  But  of  the  interests 
of  the  Monthly  or  Quarterly  Meetings,  1  do  say,  and  dare  re^ 
futation,  that  the  representatives  do  represent  those  meetings, 
and  are  to  be  consulted,  as  respects  the  Quarterly  Meeting. 
I  may  ask,  as  in  the  present  instance,  of  Mr.  Hilles,  a  repre- 
sentative from  Redstone  Meeting — he  never  appeared,  he  did 
not  answer,  he  did  not  represent  his  meeting,  and  that  neglect 
was  a  neglect  wittingly — of  him  I  may  ask,  would  he  not  be 
subject  to  be  dealt  with:  would  he  not  be  subject  to  disown- 
ment,  unless  he  condemned  that  conduct,  and  restored  himself 
to  unity  in  the  society?  Surely  he  would.  And  why,  if  he  had 
no  right  there,  other  than  other  members?  1  do  think  that  the 
gentlemen  have  not  made  the  proper  distinction  between  the 
representation  of  meetings,  and  the  representation  of  indivi- 
duals. 

The  Quarterly  Meeting,  as  a  society,  is  no  ideal  thing.  It 
is  in  itself  a  little  state;  and  as  such  a  state,  is  a  body  which 
can  only  be  represented,  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  by  its  depu- 
ties or  representatives,  who,  as  Clarkson  says,  are  supposed 
to  be  acquainted  with  the  affairs  of  the  society,  and  charged 
with  its  interests.  If,  then,  1  have  a  correct  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, there  is  no  mystery  or  difficulty  about  it.  Any  individual 
would  have  a  right  to  attend  any  conference,  any  synod,  or  any 
assembly  of  a  society  to  which  he  belongs,  so  far  as  I  know  the 
societies  of  this  country,  and  this  society  is  not  dissimilar  from 
others,  upon  that  subject,  except  they  have  special  rules  to 
the  contrary.  He  might  propound  a  subject,  and  be  heard;  but 
can  it  be  supposed  that  he  would  have  the  same  authority  as  a 
presiding  officer;  as  ministers,  or  elders? 

We  are  led,  very  often,  to  misunderstand  a  question,  by  not 
i)eing  acquainted  with  the  terms  which  are  used.  The  society 
of  Friends  have,  from  the  time  of  George  Fox,  separated 
themselves  from  the  world,  and,  as  he  who  has  read  their  his 


196 


Trial  of  Friends 


tory  will  be  satisfied,  have  adopted  a  system,  nearer  to  the 
church  system  during  the  three  first  centuries,  than  that  of 
any  other  church.  They  have  adopted  rules  by  which  they 
will  not  go  to  law:  they  will  not  be  concerned  in  the  sports  of 
the  day,  which  will  lead  to  a  dissipation  of  mind  and  proper- 
ty; and  with  this  distinctiveness  of  character,  they  have  as- 
sumed a  different  language.  And  herein  is  probably  the  dif- 
ficulty of  understanding  their  rules.  They  have  used  different 
terms  in  their  courts:  for  instance,  the  term  disownment. 
We  never  pronounce  anathemas,  we  never  issue  bulls,  or  con- 
demnations of  character  to  the  world.  We  only  say,  thy  con- 
duct has  rendered  thee  disunited  with  us.  I  say,  in  the  use 
of  terms,  we  mistake  very  often — in  the  term  clerk; — it  is  sup- 
posed by  the  gentlemen,  because  he  is  called  clerk,  and  they 
do  not  say  that  they  invest  him  with  the  power  of  moderator, 
chairman,  speaker,  or  president,  that  he  does  not  possess 
those  powers.  But  when  the  subject  comes  to  be  examined, 
I  think  we  shall  satisfy  the  court,  that  he  does  possess  these 
powers,  not  in  their  full  extent,  but  in  all  the  extent  necessa- 
ry, on  their  theory,  to  the  entire  extent. 

1  come  then,  to  the  third  point,  whether  this  meeting,  this 
society,  were  assembled. 

(The  Judge.  Do  you  wish  to  be  understood  that  members, 
other  than  representatives,  have  no  vote?) 

I  consider  representatives  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  as  repre- 
senting the  society;  as  representing  the  Quarterly  Meelings. 
Any  member  within  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  who  is  not  a  repre- 
sentative, may  attend,  but  he  does  not  attend,  having  charge 
of  the  concerns  of  the  meeting.  He  may  speak  and  propound 
questions,  he  may  represent  his  grievances;  and  as  they  never 
call  the  ayes  and  noes,  or  never  have  done,  for  almost  two 
hundred  years,  the  weight  of  that  member's  opinion  goes  for 
what  it  is  worth;  and  1  am  sure,  that  your  honour  must  have 
understood  what  they  mean  by  this — that,  in  separating  them- 
selves from  the  world,  they  would  not  adopt  the  forms  and 
ceremonies  of  the  world;  and  had  they  done  it,  they  would  soon 
have  become  a  debating,  noisy  society,  which  would  have 
swelled  their  records,  and  led  to  dis-unity.  But  they  have 
always  conducted  and  sustained  themselves,  under  the  mutual 
confidence  which  they  have  placed,  in  the  first  instance,  in  Him 
who  rules  over  all;  and  secondly,  in  their  brethren.  First,  a 
question  is  not  carried  by  yeas  and  nays.  It  is  not  carried  by 
votes,  but  the  clerk  hears  all,  and  collects  the  sense;  and,  in 
the  language  of  every  witness,  if  there  be  an  uninformed  mem- 
ber, an  illiterate  member,  a  member  that  might,  in  fact,  be  of 
too  loose,  or  liberal  sentiments,  if  he  should  make  his  remarks, 
they  would  go,  I  repeat,  for  what  they  arc  worth,  but  not  for 
the  same  value  as  those  of  an  aged  man,  who  had  grown  gray 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio 


197 


in  the  service  of  the  society.  The  simple  member  has  no  voice, 
only  in  that  way.  Cases  might  be  put,  where  his  voice  would 
be  liilly  heard.  If  there  were  one  hundred  representatives, 
composing  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  five  hundred  ordinary 
members,  I  would  not  say  but  a  question  might  be  agitated 
there,  in  which  the  sentiments  of  a  majority  of  representatives 
would  not  prevail.  It  might  occur,  but  it  would  be  where  a 
question  would  not  be  made,  whether  the  overruling  of  the  re- 
presentatives was  legal,  lawful,  or  consistent  with  their  system. 
For  there  might  be  two  hundred,  equally  learned  in  their  dis- 
cipline, equally  worthy,  those  who  had  established  a  character 
for  godliness  and  usefulness,  to  whom  equal  attention  m.ight  be 
paid — they  would  not  contend,  but  go  upon  the  doctrine  of 
utiity ; — we  yield  when  we  find  ourselves  in  a  minority,  or  op- 
posed in  a  proposition,  which  appears  to  be  supported  by  the 
better  and  abler  sense  of  the  community. 

You  have  heard  it  repeatedly  stated,  that  they  never  decide 
by  yeas  and  nays,  except  in  the  ulterior  resort;  and  that  never 
has  been  necessary,  till  the  last  Yearly  Meeting.  They  put 
that  as  the  only  case,  where  the  yeas  and  nays  have  been  called. 
As  the  Yearly  Meeting  possesses  the  supervisory  power  over 
the  Quarterly  Meeting,  language  has  become  useless,  and 
changed  its  nature  and  its  office,  if  the  representatives  from 
the  Quarterly  Meetings  do  not  compose  the  Yearly  Meeting; 
for  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  a  meeting  of  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ings, when  they  meet  for  discipline.  Let  me  go  back,  and  ask, 
what  is  the  use  of  a  Monthly  Meeting?  It  is  not  necessary  for 
worship,  for  they  can  worship  in  the  Preparative  Meetings. 
What  is  a  Quarterly  Meeting?  It  is  not  necessary  for  worship, 
as  the  Monthly  Meetings  have  power  over  the  preparatives,  as 
meetings  of  discipline.  It  is  purely  a  meeting  of  discipline 
over  the  preparatives;  and  so  is  the  Quarterly  over  the  Monthly 
Meetings;  but  not  over  the  individual  members.  For  the  books 
and  witnesses  tell  us,  that  each  member  is  accountable  to  his 
own  Monthly  Meeting;  the  Monthly  Meeting  administers 
justice,  and  the  Quarter  is  only  a  court  of  appeal,  presiding 
over  the  Monthly  Meeting;  and  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  a  court 
of  appeal,  or  supervisory  court,  over  the  Quarterly  Meetings — 
not  over  the  members.  Strictly  speaking,  there  is  no  member 
of  a  Quarterly  Meeting,  for  every  member  belongs  to  a  Monthly 
Meeting;  and  there  he  must  be  arraigned,  tried  and  condemn- 
ed. It  is,  then,  only  in  their  ecclesiastical  polity,  that  these  su- 
perior meetings  preside  over  the  conduct  of  the  lower  meetings. 
Language  is  of  no  use,  if  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  not  constituted 
of  those  who  represent  the  Quarterly  Meetings. 

I  have  said  that  this  society  has  rules  and  regulations  for  all 
the  exigencies  of  the  society,  and  for  the  complete  control  and 
government  of  the  members,  as  relates  to  their  moral  conduct, 
2.5 


198 


Trial  of  Friends 


and  all  that  need  not  come  within  the  purview  of  the  munici- 
pal and  civil  laws  of  the  state.  They  have  a  more  specific  and 
more  unequivocal  mode,  than  any  other  society  of  Christians 
on  earth.  It  appears  to  me,  there  can  be  no  discrepancy  of 
sentiment,  when  the  subject  is  brought  home  to  reason  and 
common  sense. 

I  think  I  have  established  the  position,  that  the  Yearly 
Meeting  does  consist  of  representatives.  I  think  this  is  set- 
tled by  good  authority  ;  by  the  books  of  the  society,  and  other 
unequivocal  testimony.  And  the  claim  which  the  gentlemen 
have  set  up,  and  which  they  will  contend  for,  that  this  is  a 
democracy,  is  a  claim  that  I  think  is  not  well  founded — that 
the  Yearly  Meeting,  when  assembled  at  Mount  Pleasant,  was 
a  pure  democracy,  without  a  head.  It  cannot  so  be.  They 
have  resorted  to  testimony,  and  sought  to  bring  up  prece- 
dents and  usages — to  bring  up  the  course  which  has  been 
pursued  heretofore,  to  estaljlish  the  fact;  and  I  have  yet  to 
learn  that  they  have  produced  a  single  instance.  They  have 
produced  cases  of  disorder,  and  where  clerks  have  been  ap- 
pointed when  none  were  present,  or,  where  those  present  have 
been  accused  of  any  thing  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  society; 
yet  in  no  instance  have  they  brought  before  your  honour  a  sin- 
gle isolated  item,  to  show  that  any  regular  meeting  of  Friends, 
in  their  monthly,  quarterly,  or  yearjy  capacity,  have  ever  de- 
posed the  existing,  or  present  clerk,  without  his  consent,  or 
some  known  or  established  charges  against  him. 

The  testimony  is,  that  Jonathan  Taylor  was  appointed  at 
the  last  year's  Yearly  Meeting,  1827,  in  the  stead  of  Mr. 
Bates,  who  had  been  appointed  regularly  at  the  opening  of 
the  meeting,  but  being  unwell  could  not  serve,  and  Taylor  was 
appointed  in  his  stead.  The  minute  of  appointment  we  have 
here,  before  us.  There  is  no  question,  and  I  suppose  none  will 
be  made,  that  Taylor  was  the  clerk  of  the  meeting  when  it 
met.  I  may  ask  then,  when  that  meeting  had  assembled,  and 
the  clerk  had  taken  his  seat,  if  it  was  not  a  religious  meeting 
duly  assembled?  Without  going  further,  I  would  advert,  at 
this  moment,  to  refresh  your  honour's  recollection,  to  the  sta- 
tute which  has  been  read. 

But  it  will  be  necessary  to  go  further,  and  inquire  if  Taylor 
was  not  the  proper  organ,  as  clerk  of  the  meeting,  to  open  it. 
From  all  the  usage,  which  has  been  testified  to  here,  and  from 
the  knowledge  of  the  most  aged  and  venerable  members  in 
the  society,  they  uniformly  say,  that  such  has  been  the  cus- 
tom, from  the  first  constitution  of  the  meeting  down  to  this 
time.  The  clerk,  in  the  first  instance,  makes  aminute,  which 
they  call  an  opening  minute,  and  reads  it.  He  then  proceeds 
to  call  the  representatives,  and  when  he  has  called  them,  and 
they  have  answered,  the  meeting  is  opened.    It  cannot  cer- 


at  Steubenviile,  Ohio. 


199 


tainly  be  consistent  with  the  principles  of  their  discipline,  or 
their  proceedings  known  to  us,  of  a  deliberative  kind,  when 
persons  are  assembled  together,  that  any  proposition  or  mo- 
tion can  be  made  or  sustained  regularly,  until  the  meeting  is 
organized,  unless  it  be  for  the  purpose  of  its  organization.  If 
a  motion  be  made  before  it  be  organized,  it  must  be  for  its 
organization.  The  clerk  was  in  his  place,  and  was  in  no  way 
disqualified.  He  had  a  duty  to  perform,  and  with  as  much 
expedition  as  his  ability  would  enable  him,  he  proceeded  to 
perform  it.  There  was  supplication;' after  which,  as  is  usual, 
there  was  silence  for  a  short  time,  and  the  clerk  then  pro- 
ceeded to  make  a  minute,  and  to  read  it.  Some  said  the  meet- 
ing was  opened  J  others,  that  it  was  not.  Whether  then,  the 
clerk,  who  was  in  his  place,  was  the  organ  of  the  meeting  for 
the  purpose  of  opening  the  meeting,  depends  on  their  disci- 
pline; of  that,  it  seems  to  me,  we  cannot  dispute.  We  may 
argue  and  talk,  but  there  is  no  ground  for  disputation.  I  will 
refer  your  honour  to  the  discipline. 

"  The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio  was  set  off  from  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Baltimore,  and  is  composed  of  Friends  west  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains. 
The  Yearly  Meeting  in  Ohio  was  held  at  Short  Cr^ek,  in  the  year  1813. 
It  is  now  established  at  Mount  Pleasant. 

"  The  Yearly  Meeting  is  now  held  on  the  first  First-day  of  the  Ninth- 
month.  A  public  meeting  for  worship  at  the  tenth  hour  in  the  morning, 
and  another  at  the  third  hour  in  the  afternoon.  The  meeting  for  discipline 
is  opened  at  the  tenth  hour  on  Second-day  morning.  The  Yearly  Meeting 
of  ministers  and  elders  is  held  on  the  Seventh-day  of  the  week  preceding, 
and  now  concluded  to  be  opened  also  at  the  tenth  hour  in  the  morning. 

"  The  representatives  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  both  men  and  wo- 
men, are  annually  to  choose  a  clerk,  and  an  assistant,  at  the  close  of  the 
first  sitting  of  the  meeting  for  discipline;  whose  names  are  to  be  reported 
at  the  opening  of  the  next  sitting," — (Book  of  Discipline,  97.) 

Now, notwithstanding  the  criticism  attempted,  on  the  other 
side,  to  show  that  the  representatives  had  the  power  barely  of 
nominating  the  clerk,  the  discipline  is  express  and  unequivo- 
cal, that  the  representatives  shall  choose  a  clerk  at  the  close  of 
the  first  sitting,  who  is  to  be  announced  at  the  first  sitting 
after.  If  then  the  clerk  is  chosen  in  that  way,  what  is  his 
office,  and  how  long  does  it  continue  ?  It  is  till  the  close  of  the 
sitting,  and  till  a  successor  is  appointed.  If  this  be  a  fact, 
then  Taylor  was  the  clerk,  and  in  his  place.  He  proceeded 
to  make  the  entry,  according  to  the  direction  in  the  disci- 
pline, and  by  the  aid  of  the  assistant  clerk,  proceeded  to  call 
the  names  of  the  representatives,  and  they  answered.  The 
meeting  was  then  opened. 

The  fact  that  Mr.  Taylor  was  in  the  chair,  and  the  fact 
that  the  representatives  had  placed  in  his  hands  their  reports, 
together  with  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  discipline,  that 
the  representatives  are  to  choose  the  clerk,  it  does  seem  to 
me,  must  remove  and  rob  the  gentlemen  of  their  argument, 


200 


Trial  nj  Friends 


that  he  was  not  the  proper,  regularly  constituted  clerk.  And 
against  this  position,  I  will  venture  to  say,  they  will  have 
candour  enough  not  to  contend.  For  they  must  show,  before 
they  can  undertake  to  allege  that  he  was- not  the  clerk  in  pro- 
per person,  they  must  show  that  he  had  become  incapacitated, 
impeached,  or  removed;  and  no  such  thing  is  attempted  to  be 
shown.  I  shall  say  further,  as  I  have  said  before,  that  the 
meeting  was  not  opened  until  the  names  of  the  representatives 
were  called.  And,  I  say  again,  they  will  not  undertake  to 
gainsay,  that  Taylor  was  the  regular  organ  of  the  meeting, 
there  in  his  place;  and  that  it  was  his  absolute  duty  to  open 
the  meeting;  and  for  any  neglect  of  that  duty,  he  was  liable  to 
impeachment. 

Let  us  now  inquire  if  there  was  any  disqualification— there 
certainly  was  none.  All  the  witnesses  concur  to  show,  that 
there  was  no  circumstance,  fact,  or  matter,  on  which  the 
meeting  could  act,  to  remove  him.  For  if  he  had  been  guilty 
of  any  offence,  the  regular  tribunal  is,  the  Monthly  Meeting  to 
which  he  belongs.  No  matter  whether  it  be  the  clerk  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  or  any  body  else,  the  power  belongs  to  the 
Monthly  Meeting,  and  that  meeting  has  jurisdiction  of  his  of- 
fence, and  that  meeting  alone. 

I  shall,  for  the  present,  pass  over  the  proposition  of  French, 
and  the  nomination  of  Hilles,  and  inquire  whether  this  meet- 
ing was  duly  assembled  for  thv  purpose  of  public  worship,  or 
to  perform  certain  duties  enjoined  on  them,  as  members  of 
this  society.  The  witnesses^  Ladd,  Bates,  Stanton,  and  Tay- 
lor, testify,  that  the  meeting  was  opened  by  Taylor  as  clerk — 
that  it  was  in  the  regular  manner  and  form  of  opening  a  meet- 
ing. We  have  also  the  testimony  and  support  of  Updegraff  and 
Askew,  who  say,  that  he  opened  the  meeting^,  and  that  the  re- 
presentatives were  called.  The  question  next  is,  were  they 
disturbedP  There  is  no  doubt  they  were  disturbed;  but  the 
question  is,  whether  the  proposition  of  French  and  the  nomi- 
nation of  Hilles  caused  it.  And  here,  I  need  scarcely  make  an 
argument. — Yet,  notwithstanding  the  plain  and  positive  asser- 
tions of  Messrs.  Pickering  and  Updegraff,  and  one  or  two 
others,  that  had  not  Mr.  French  made  the  motion,  or  submit- 
ted the  proposition,  there  would  have  been  no  disturbance,  it 
seems  the  disturbance  came  from  the  other  side.  I  do  not 
know  how  strangely  men  may  argue  upon  facts,  so  directly 
staring  them  in  the  face.  Taylor  was  the  regular  clerk,  pro- 
ceeding according  to  the  ancient  and  known  usage  of  the  so- 
ciety. They  declare,  if  French  had  not  made  the  proposition, 
no  disturbance  would  have  taken  place.  It  remains,  then,  only 
to  ascertain,  and  we  say  it  is  ascertained,  that  the  proposition 
of  French  was  directly  out  of  order.  We  are  told  that  it  was 
the  case,  by  the  most  aged  and  respectable  individuals  in  the 


at  Sleubcnville,  Ohio. 


201 


society;  and  we  may  refer,  for  confirnialion,  to  tlie  tesiimony 
of  Tatum,  Braithwaite,  Coffin,  Stanton,  and  Ladd  of  Virgi- 
nia, who  all  pronounce  to  you,  that  the  proposition  by  French 
was  out  of  order,  and  ought  not  to  have  been  sustained.  I  say, 
in  the  face  of  any  man,  that  it  was  out  of  order.  Who  was 
there  to  take  cognizance  of  that  proposition,  to  a  meeting 
without  a  head?  Did  he  assume  to  be  the  head?  It  was  not, 
in  the  first  instance,  a  proposition  to  appoint  a  clerk,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  other  being  incapable,  or  absent;  but  it  was  a 
proposition,  indignant  to  him,  and  to  the  meeting:  "It  de- 
volves on  me  to  state  to  this  meeting,  that  the  conduct  of  our 
clerks  has  been  such,"  Sec. 

Should  I  liken  this  to  any  other  deliberative  body  on  earth, 
the  fallacy  would  appear  at  once,  in  its  most  glaring  colours. 
And  why  should  there  be  a  rule  applied  to  this  meeting,  which 
has  never  been  adopted  in  any  other  deliberative  society,  and 
which,  if  adopted,  would  strike  at  the  foundation  of  all  order, 
and  demolish  the  strongest  society  on  earth?  Why  should  it 
be  applied  to  them?  Is  it  because  there  is  a  division  in  the  so- 
ciety— because  there  were  a  majority  of  the  members  who 
wished  the  proposition  to  prevai?  I  say,  each  member,  whether 
a  representative  or  an  individual,  was  bound,  and  pledged,  in 
that  instance,  as  strongly  as  I  am  bound,  before  your  honour, 
to  comply  with  the  ordinary  rules  of  court. 

Had  Taylor  no  rights?  Was  he  to  be  treated,  in  that  in- 
stance, as  a  culprit,  as  a  criminal,  as  a  convict?  That  propo- 
sition involved  in  itself  a  condemnation  of  Taylor,  without 
alleging  to  Taylor,  or  the  world,  the  causes  of  it.  That  pro- 
position contained  an  impeachment  of  his  conduct,  without 
carrying  with  it  any  kind  of  specification,  wherein  the  mis- 
conduct existed.  That  proposition  involved  in  itself  an  utter 
condemnation,  without  any  opportunity  of  being  heard,  or  any 
chance  of  trial,  or  even  the  opportunity  to  say,  I  am  innocent. 
For  if  a  removal,  if  your  honour  please,  could  be,  at  that  time, 
consistent  with  their  discipline;  if  it  could  be  imagined,  for  a 
moment,  consistent  with  any  deliberative  assembly  on  earth, 
it  must  be  on  the  hypothesis,  that  he  was  a  culprit,  that 
he  had  been  guilty  of  an  offence,  and  was  unworthy  of  the 
community  of  civil,  saying  nothing  of  religious,  society. 
There  was  another  place,  where  he  might  have  been  arraign- 
ed and  tried — there  was  another  time,  when  he  might  have 
been  arraigned  and  tried,  and  there  was  another,  who  might 
have  pronounced  sentence,  if  he  were  found  guilty. 

Then,  in  that  proposition,  I  again  say,  there  was  an  indig- 
nity thrown  on  every  member  of  the  society,  by  this  allega- 
tion, in  the  presence  of  fifteen  hundred  people,  as  one  witness 
says.  The  clerk  had  merited  approbation,  and  a  place,  and 
promotion,  and  had  been  placed  in  the  highest  scat  in  the 


202 


Trial  of  Friends 


synagogue;  and  there  was,  in  this  proposition,  an  allegation 
against  this  venerable  man,  that  took  fi  om  him  his  justly  ac- 
knowledged character.  If  this  proposilioit  of  French  was, 
in  itself,  out  of  order,  and  an  untenable  proposition,  saying 
nothing  of  tlie  innocency  of  Taylor,  then  the  nomination  of 
Hilles,  which  was  predicated  upon  the  removal  of  a  clerk, 
was  also  out  of  order. 

But  we  have  gone  so  far  as  to  satisfy  your  honour,  that 
'."aylor  was  not  guilty — that  he  was  not  obnoxious  to  censure, 
tnat  he  had  done  nothing  which  could  bring  upon  him  the 
animadversion  of  society.  And  from  the  mouth  of  their  own 
witnesses,  we  have  shown,  that  the  Monthly  Meeting  was  the 
proper  tribunal  to  animadvert  upon  his  conduct.  It  was  al- 
leged, to  be  sure,  that  they  had  understood  he  had  violated  a 
rule  of  discipline,  l)y  calling  on  Peaslee  to  sit  down;  but  French 
does  not  embody  that  allegation  in  his  proposition;  he  only 
says,  that  his  conduct,  the  year,  preceding,  had  been  such  as 
to  disqualify  him.  Etc.;  evidently  including,  and  intending  to 
include,  not  only  the  dereliction  of  duty  in  calling  Peaslee  to 
sit  down,  but  in  separating  from  the  society  (as  it  is  called) 
at  New  York,  last  summer.  Does  it  lie  in  the  mouths  of  the 
Hicksites,  here,  to  condemn  Jonathan  Taylor  for  leaving  the 
Hicksites  in  New  York?  That  is  the  ostensible  object,  but  it 
is  not  true.  They  allege,  that  the  orthodox  have  treated  them 
wrongfully — that  they  maltreat  them,  because  they  are  Hicks- 
ites. I  mean  no  disrespect  by  the  term,  for,  as  men,  I  respect 
them  as  much  as  I  do  the  orthodox.  But,  I  say,  it  does  not 
lie  in  their  mouths  to  accuse  Mr.  Taylor,  and  make  that  the 
foundation  of  his  disownment,  of  his  degradation,  impeach- 
ment, and  condemnation,  that  he  disagrees  with  them  in  sen- 
timent; for  it  is  on  that  ostensible  ground  that  they  proceeded. 
I  ask,  then,  if  it  be  not  altogether  a  fetch?  It  is  a  subject  of 
apology,  thought  of  at  the  moment,  to  effect  the  object  which 
those  conferences  had  in  view,  of  which  I  shall  soon  speak. 

If  Mr.  Taylor  called  on  a  minister  to  sit  down,  when  he 
ought  not  to  have  done  so,  it  was  a  subject  of  animadversion 
for  the  ministers  and  elders.  But  it  was  manifest  to  the 
Hicksites,  that  Taylor,  in  calling  Peaslee  to  order,  did  ho- 
nestly and  sincerely  suppose,  that  he  was  a  person  who  ought 
not  to  speak,  and  that  he  was  in  duty  bound  to  request  him  to 
sit  down.  Grant,  for  a  moment,  that  it  was  not  true — that 
Peaslee  had  not  been  disowned,  that  he  had  not  been  excom- 
municated for  preaching  doctrines  contrary  to  the  tenets  of 
the  society  of  Friends — that  nothing  should  have  authorized 
any  member  to  request  him  to  sit  down :  when  Taylor 
thought,  and  had  been  advised  and  informed,  that  he  had  not 
a  right  as  a  minister,  and  ought  not  to  preach  and  exhort,  he 
then  was  innocent,  in  calling  him  to  order,  for  he  thought  he 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


20.1 


was  doing  his  duty,  whether  right  or  wrong.  But  the  propo- 
sition of  French  deprived  him,  and  cut  him  off,  without  an 
opportunity  of  redeeming  his  character,  merely  upon  the 
ground  of  charges  that  had  been  whispered  against  him 
out  of  doors,  even  the  rumour  of  which,  only  existed  among 
the  Hicksites. 

That  there  was  a  disturbance,  is  a  matter  beyond  dispute; 
and  it  is  unpleasant  to  the  feelings  of  every  citizen,  who  has 
heard  the  testimony,  to  be  informed  that  it  was  a  disturbance 
of  the  character  which  has  been  represented.  It  has  been  re- 
presented in  various  strong  terms;  some  have  called  it  a  riot, 
some  a  disorder,  some  a  tumult;  it  was  so  great,  that  the  be- 
holders fek  awful — it  was  painful  and  distressing;  it  was  an 
appalling  scene!  Well,  it  must  have  been,  when  there  was 
heard  from  different  parts  of  the  house,  in  an  assembly  for  dis- 
cipline, where  it  was  to  be  presumed  there  were  none  but 
members  of  the  society,  one  saying,  "go  ahead,  or  burst  your 
boiler!"  another  one,  "huzza  for  Jacksonf"  And  yet,  it  is 
said,  all  this  is  to  be  tolerated — that  it  is  no  infringement  of 
our  laws;  that  we  have  no  power  to  restrain  such  proceedings, 
and  prevent  their  recurrence.  But  surely  there  is,  there  must 
be  somewhere  a  corrective  power. 

Our  next  inquiry  will  be,  to  identify  these  defendants. 

Court  adjourned  till  9  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Wednesday,  October  22,  9  o'clock,  M.  M. 
Mr.  Goodnow  in  continuation. — If  your  honour  please  :  at 
the  time  we  adjourned  last  evening,  I  had  arrived  at  the  sixth 
division  of  my  argument,  which  was  the  identification  of  the 
defendants  in  this  disturbance.  In  order  clearly  to  under- 
stand how  they  are  identified,  to  the  extent  of  their  co-opera- 
tion with  that  party  who  created  the  disturbance,  it  will  be 
necessary  for  me  to  take  a  view  of  the  anterior  and  subsequent 
movements  of  that  party;  not  extensively,  but  in  brief.  And 
I  shall  repeat  some  of  the  circumstances  and  facts  which  I 
urged  yesterday,  as  to  the  proposition  of  French,  and  the 
nomination  of  Hilles.  We  have  seen,  that  the  appointment 
of  Hilles,  as  well  as  the  previous  proposition  of  French,  were 
not  questions  before  the  meeting;  the  regular  clerk  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting  being  then  in  existence,  and  in  his  place.  And 
here  I  will  add,  with  a  view  of  calling  the  attention  of  the 
court,  what  I  then  omitted,  that  Joseph  Updegraff,  and  divers 
others,  on  the  part  of  the  defence,  have  expressly  said  to  the 
court,  that  there  was  no  time  for  the  discussion  of  either  of 
the  propositions.  And  it  has  been  said  by  Tatum,  on  the 
part  of  the  prosecution,  and  the  inference  is  clear,  and  must 
be  evident,  from  the  facts  and  the  opinions  on  the  part  of  the 
defendants,  that  there  was  no  approval  or  disapproval  of 


204 


Trial  of  Friends 


either  of  those  propositions;  and  this  opinion  is  certainly 
corroborated  by  every  fact  connected  with  the  case.  It  ac- 
cords with  what  unquestionably  was  the  sense  of  the  meeting; 
and  it  certainly  will  be  preposterous  for  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  to  contend,  and  equally  preposterous  for  me  to  re- 
sist, the  legality  of  the  nomination  of  Hilles,  and  the  proposi- 
tion of  French.  It  is  in  vain  to  disguise  the  fact,  that  these 
measures  were  for  the  sole  purpose  of  opposing  the  orthodox. 
It  is  in  vain  to  contend  that  there  was  a  uniting  in  the  meet- 
ing, with  the  nomination  of  Hilles,  or  that  there  was  an  ac- 
cordance with  the  proposition  of  French.  It  is  an  assump- 
tion against  the  fact,  and  against  the  common  sense  of  every 
Friend,  and  every  individual  present.  With  a  view  to  show 
that  accordance,  they  have  gone  into  testimony  to  prove  a  ma- 
jority; but  we  have  shown  that  there  was  a  large  majority 
on  the  part  of  the  orthodox.  They,  with  a  view  to  the  re- 
moval of  Taylor,  the  peculiar  friend  and  officer  of  the  or- 
thodox, assert,  that  the  proposition  was  supported  by  an  over- 
Avhelming  majority;  and  that  it  ought  to  be  considered  the 
sense  of  the  meeting,  that  Taylor  shouH  be  condemned  and 
removed  ;  and  that  the  sense  of  the  meeting  was,  for  Hilles  to 
be  elected  over  his  head.  It  is  preposterous;  for  the  witnesses, 
Updegraff  and  French,  very  respectable  witnesses,  say  the  un- 
derstanding was,  that  the  orthodox  dissented  and  disapproved. 
It  was  then, — and  I  submit  it  to  the  candid  opinion  of  every 
one,  if  it  does  not  solve  itself  into  this  position — it  was  by  a 
breath  of  acclamation,  by  a  noise,  by  a  wind,  and  not  by  the 
good  feeling,  not  by  the  sound  feeling,  not  by  the  open,  solemn 
sense  of  the  meeting.  There  was  a  confusion  of  voices,  like 
that  of  Babel,  more  like  a  political  caucus  than  any  thing  else 
I  can  name;  in  which,  amid  the  tumult,  was  heard,  "huzza  for 
Jackson."  I  say  it  would,  in  our  political  caucusses,  disgrace 
any  political  party.  And  this  is  the  way  the  proposition  of 
French  was  carried,  to  rob  a  respectable  old  Friend  of  his 
good  character — to  destroy  the  meeting,  and  to  mount  Hilles, 
the  leader,  the  head  of  a  mob,  as  one  of  the  witnesses  has 
called  him.  It  was  unjust;  it  was  unwarrantable;  it  was  un- 
lawful; it  was  an  indignity  to  the  meeting,  and  could  only  be 
supported  by  spirits  capable  of  caucussing  in  the  house  of 
God. 

Upon  this  proposition  of  French,  I  would  say,  to  prevent 
cavil,  that  we  view  it  as  immaterial  at  what  time  it  was  made, 
whether  before  or  after  the  opening  of  the  meeting  by  the 
presiding  clerk.  If  before,  it  must  have  been  solely  on  the  as- 
sumption, that  there  was  no  such  clerk  or  officer  in  existence, 
or  in  his  place;  which  was  untrue.  If  after  the  opening  of  the 
meeting,  then,  to  have  been  in  order,  it  must  have  been  a  pro- 
position to  the  meeting,  and  must  have  been  recorded  by  the 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


205 


clerk.  He  must  have  collected  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  He 
must  have  read  it;  and  there  must  have  been  an  approval,  before 
it  could  become  binding.  That  is  the  testimony  of  Magar  and 
others,  as  to  a  proposition  becoming  binding.  As  to  the  time, 
it  is  immaterial ;  and  I  might  well  ask,  to  show  the  character — 
to  show  to  the  Hicksites,  who  amalgamated  with  the  defend- 
ants, the  absurdity  of  the  proceeding ;  I  might  show,  if  I  had 
time,  a  delineation  of  the  circumstances,  as  they  took  place, 
and  how  they  would  read.  At  a  Yearly  Meeting,  held  the  8th 
day  of  September,  1828,  Israel  French  rose  in  his  place,  and 
made  a  proposition,  and  thereupon,  one  or  two  hundred  voices 
sung  out,  "  I  unite,  I  unite:"  thereupon,  W m.  B.  Irish,  or  Eng- 
lish, or  somebody  else,  nominated  Hilles;  and  it  was  carried 
in  the  same  way — and  all  in  the  course  of  so  many  minutes. 
And  where  would  the  Yearly  Meeting  be?  and  what  would 
become  of  the  records?  what  would  become  of  the  clerk? — We 
must  be  convinced  that  this  is  all  a  farce:  and  not  only  a  farce, 
but  most  unchristian.  It  is  totally  immaterial  as  to  the  time 
when  Hilles's  nomination  was  made;  whether  before  Taylor 
read  the  opening  minute,  about  the  time,  or  afterwards.  It 
is  totally  immaterial,  because  it  rests  upon  the  adoption  and 
approval  of  the  proposition  of  French. 

About  this  Mr.  Wm.  B.  Irish,  it  will  be  well  to  notice,  that 
he  is  a  member  of  Redstone  meeting;  that  he  is  from  the 
same  Quarter  with  Hilles  and  Lewis — a  pretty  trio:  and  in 
this  point  of  view,  it  will  be  well  to  bear  in  mind,  that  he  is 
from  the  same  vicinity — an  associate  and  neighbour  of  Hilles. 
And  as  to  this  nomination  of  Hilles,  I  repeat,  there  was  no 
minute  made,  nor  read — no  time  given  for  discussion — no 
time  for  approval  or  disapproval;  and  in  this,  as  in  the  pro- 
position of  French,  the  meeting  did  not  concur.  There  was  a 
tumultuous  sound  of  voices,  and  reiteration  after  reiteration, 
by  some  individuals,  in  the  usual  expression  of  the  society, 
"  I  unite."  But  that  the  sense  of  the  meeting  was  with  it,  is 
clearly  and  unequivocally  denied,  by  the  facts  and  testimony 
in  the  case.  And  for  these  proceedings,  the  counsel  in  their 
ingenuity,  and  the  witnesses  for  the  party,  with  all  their  vigi- 
lance, have  been  unable  to  find  a  single  precedent.  It  stands 
an  anomalous  proceeding — more  anomalous  than  has  ever 
taken  place  in  the  Christian  churches,  from  the  beginning  until 
this  day,  amidst  all  the  blood,  and  turmoil,  and  revolution, 
which  have  been  occasioned  by  enmity  to  the  church,  or  the 
over  zeal  of  the  church.  There  has  been  no  instance  of  such 
outrageous  conduct;  and  I  charge  it  home,  as  being  marked 
with  an  intolerant  and  unchristian  zeal. 

In  this  very  transaction  they  stand  self-condemned — yes,  I 
say  they  stand  self-condemned  by  their  own  measures.  They 
have  stated  some  cases,  and  have  pretended,  and  the  counsel 
26 


206 


Trial  of  Friends 


may  insist,  lliat  they  are  precedents,  or  examples,  which  they 
are  entitled  to  follow;  but  there  is  not  one  which  does  not  di- 
rectly oppose  the  positions  which  they  assume.  They  have 
spoken  of  the  appointment  of  a  clerk  in  Philadelphia  Yearly 
Meeting;  and  there  they  show,  that  the  representatives  exer- 
cised the  power,  but  they  divided  in  opinion.  They  have 
brought  to  your  view  also,  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Indiana,  and 
there  they  are  defeated;  for  in  this  instance,  you  will  find,  that 
there  was  a  disability  on  the  part  of  the  clerk— he  was  unable 
to  attend. 

I  am  told,  at  the  bar,  that  the  opposite  counsel  will  rely  on 
that  precedent.  In  reply,  I  only  say,  we  do  not  deny  that 
where  there  is  a  case,  in  which  no  clerk  is  present,  or  if  pre- 
sent, is  incapable  of  acting,  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  meeting, 
in  that  exigency,  to  supply  a  clerk.  I  have  not  asked,  nor 
inquired,  any  further  than  the  testimony  has  come  out,  but  I 
mention  it,  as  the  only  course  which  could  be  adopted  with 
some  consistency.  They  have  cited  New  Garden.  In  the 
meeting  at  New  Garden,  there  was  a  proposition  to  appoint  a 
clerk  instead  of  the  one  in  his  placej  and  I  have  just  said,  the 
Hicksites  stood  self-condemned,  in  their  opposition  to  the  or- 
thodox, at  Mount  Pleasant.  What  was  the  case  at  New  Gar- 
den? Benjamin  W.  Ladd  was  present,  on  his  duty  as  one  of 
a  committee,  and  he  was  one  of  the  leading  orthodox  at  Mount 
Pleasant.  He  then  proceeded  in  the  same  course,  which  we 
now  contend  is  right.  It  is  to  be  recollected  the  clerk  was 
under  dealing.  The  same  course,  which  we  now  contend  for 
as  the  correct  one,  Mr.  Ladd  and  his  friends  there  pursued; 
the  representatives  withdrew,  and  made  their  nomination. 
And  the  court  will  remember,  that  by  the  discipline,  commit- 
tees are  appointed  in  the  lesser  meetings  for  that  purpose. 
That  is  the  established  discipline.  What  did  the  Hicksites 
do?  They  contended,  and  used  the  same  language  used  by  the 
orthodox  at  Mount  Pleasant.  They  said,  "let  the  clerk  pro- 
ceed, we  have  a  clerk  at  the  table."  Certainly  they  will  not 
be  permitted,  one  day  to  take  one  course,  and  the  next  day 
another  course,  and  yet  claim  the  honour  of  consistency. 

The  clerk,  at  that  meeting,  was  in  the  situation  which  did 
not  authorize  him  to  sit  there.  He  was  under  a  disability, 
■which  we  have  uniformly  acknowledged  would  disqualify  him 
for  filling  that  office.  And  the  course  pursued  by  Ladd  and 
his  party,  w^as  that  authorized  by  the  discipline.  And  the 
course  which  they  pursued,  from  their  own  hypothesis,  that 
the  clerk  was  capable,  and  not  disqualified,  was  the  same 
course  that  we  pursued  at  Mount  Pleasant;  the  only  discre- 
pancy is,  that  at  Mount  Pleasant  the  clerk  was  not  at  all  dis- 
qualified, and  the  orthodox  wished  him  to  continue.  At  New 
Garden,  the  clerk  was  disqualified,  and  the  Hicksites  wished 


at  SUubcnville^  Ohio. 


him  to  act.  In  one  point  of  view,  they  acted  consistently,  for 
they  consider  all  men  alike;  all  on  a  level;  and  at  Plainfield 
they  recommended  all  to  go  to  meeting,  as  heretofore,  disre- 
garding all  the  disownments  which  have  been  passed  against 
them. 

Again,  they  have  introduced  Woodbury,  as  a  precedent, 
and  we  will  see  how  they  stand  there.  They  tell  you,  that  a 
committee  was  appointed  to  make  the  nomination,  and  it  is 
in  unison  with  this  book  of  discipline,  though  this  does  not 
reach  there.  The  meetings  here,  less  than  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, appoint  committees,  who  make  the  nomination;  and  so 
they  did  at  Woodbury;  and  yet  they  bring  that  up  as  a  pre- 
cedent. But  there  is  one  remarkable  piece  of  testimony,  which 
it  will  not  lie  in  their  mouths  to  deny  or  dispute;  it  is  from 
the  mouth  of  Hamilton,  the  old  veteran  from  New  Garden. 
He  says,  the  represetitatives  propose,  or  are  required  to  pro- 
pose, a  clerk,  in  order  to  do  away  the  necessity  of  appointing 
a  committee  for  that  purpose.  Well,  now,  he  is  correct.  See 
how  the  Hicksites  fortify  every  position  we  have  taken.  In 
the  inferior  meetings,  committees  are  appointed,  and  it  is  to 
be  sure  some  little  trouble,  and  occupies  some  time;  and,  says 
the  witness,  at  the  Yearly  Meeting,  the  representatives  are 
required  to  propose  a  clerk,  instead  of  choosing  a  committee 
for  that  purpose.  This  unites  with  our  positions,  it  supports 
and  fortifies  them. 

I  have  brought  these  positions  before  your  honour,  for  the 
purpose  of  presenting  the  defendants  in  their  true  light;  and 
I  revert  to  the  position,  and  ask  the  gentlemen  to  meet  and 
deny  it,  if  they  suppose  it  bears  upon  the  case  at  all,  that 
every  member  of  the  society  is  charged  with  a  knowledge  of 
its  laws  and  discipline,  and  that  your  honour  is  bound  to  re- 
ceive them,  as  possessing  this  knowledge,  and  to  treat  them 
and  decide  upon  them,  as  possessing  a  knowledge  of  their 
discipline.  They  are  bound  in  the  same  way  as  other  men 
are  charged  with  a  knowledge  of  the  law;  there  is  nothing  in 
this,  which  is  inconsistent  with  common  sense  and  reason.  If 
I  unite  in  partnership  with  half  a  dozen  individuals,  am  I  not 
charged  with  a  knowledge  of  the  obligations  imposed  by  the 
articles  of  co-partnership?  I  cannot  plead  ignorance.  And 
every  jurist,  if  not  every  Christian  disciplinarian,  will  see 
and  understand  what  I  am  at — that  every  member  is  bound  to 
know  the  discipline,  and  when  charged  with  an  offence,  must 
meet  and  receive  the  full  measure  of  that  rule.  Then  your 
honour  will  perceive,  why  I  reviewed  that  testimony;  because 
if  Hilles  and  James  have  taken  an  active  part,  they  must  in- 
evitably be  guilty  of  an  offence;  for  they  knew — the  law  says  it. 
reason  and  common  sense  say  it — they  knew,  they  wcie  vio 
lating  the  discipline,  and  by  violaiiiig  the  discipline,  they 


208 


Trial  of  Friends 


caused  tliat  disturbance.  They  must  at  least  have  caused  a 
disturbance,  if  they  did  not  break  the  discipline.  I  make  the 
remark,  that  I  may  not  be  misunderstood,  or  my  words  inter- 
preted beyond  their  true  sense;  they  were  particeps  criminis,  or 
they  were  concerned  in  this  transaction.  To  show  this  the 
more  clearly,  we  must  travel  back  to  the  caucusses,  and  confe- 
rences. We  have  heard  considerable,  though  we  had  to  drag 
it  out,  as  you  would  extract  a  tooth.  It  came  reluctantly,  and 
coming  reluctantly,  it  was  almost  impossible  to  determine 
the  distinct  motives  that  led  to  these  meetings,  or  what  was, 
in  fact,  their  real  result.  In  speaking  of  the  result,  your  ho- 
nour will  see,  that  the  members  of  this  society  adopt,  both  in 
their  religious  exercises  and  discipline,  and  by  habit  carry  into 
their  lives,  the  principle  of  being  governed  by  the  motions  of 
the  Spirit,  or,  as  at  the  time  they  may  be  given  to  understand 
is  the  correct  course.  I  mention  this,  that  the  court  may  un- 
derstand what  they  call  the  result  of  their  conferences. 

The  first  of  these  conferences,  conversations,  confabulations, 
or  whatever  you  may  please  to  call  them,  was  held  in  a  barn. 
I  do  not  speak  of  the  barn,  as  derogatory  to  the  meeting;  but 
it  happened  at  a  barn.  There  was  some  interchange  of  senti- 
ment on  the  division  of  the  society.  The  next  was  at  Red- 
stone, at  the  Quarterly  Meeting  house.  At  Redstone  conference, 
delegates  were  appointed  to  the  Plainfield  conference,  in  Bel- 
mont county;  and  there  were  delegates  I  think  from  all  the 
Quarters.  The  next  conference  was  at  UpdegrafF's  school- 
house,  in  Mount  Pleasant,  on  Saturday,  before  the  sitting  of 
the  Yearly  Meeting. 

It  will  be  necessary  here,  to  inquire  into  the  object  and  de- 
termination of  these  conferences  at  these  several  places.  One 
of  the  witnesses  speaks  of  the  desperate  state  of  the  society 
which  they  were  to  take  into  consideration.  What  desperate 
state?  We  are  -informed  what  they  considered  a  state  of  des- 
peration. We  are  informed  by  Israel  Updegraff,  that  there  had 
been  much  dissatisfaction  excited  by  the  disownmen'ss  which 
the  orthodox  were  carrying  on,  as  respected  themselves.  It 
is  called  a  high-handed  measure.  I  do  not  use  Mr.  Upde- 
grafF's language,  but  his  sentiment.  Herein  consisted,  as 
they  apprehended,  the  state  of  desperation  that  led  to  those 
conclaves  or  consultations,  for  devising  ways  and  means  to 
seek  redress.  Here  was  David  Hilles,  and  in  all  but  one  con- 
ference, Isaac  James  also ;  and  this  reverend  clergyman,  Mr. 
Peaslee,  for  the  calling  of  whom  to  sit  down,  Mr.  Taylor  is 
charged  with  having  violated  the  discipline  of  the  society.  A 
minister  from  abroad,  without  showing  his  credentials,  which 
every  minister  is  bound  to  carry  when  he  travels  abroad,  at- 
tempts the  duties  of  his  otTice,  and  is  requested  to  sit  down; — 
and  these  conferences  were  to  seek  redress  of  wrongs  and 
grievances.    I  have  alluded  to  the  wrong;  it  was  disownment 


at  Steubcnville^  Ohio. 


209 


on  the  part  of  the  persons  whom  they  call  orthodox.  The  dis- 
ownments  could  be  from  none  but  the  society.  The  disown- 
ments  must  come  from  the  society,  the  regularly  organized 
society,  and  the  regularly  conducting  society.  They  could 
come  from  no  other  source.  This  was  their  grievance,  and  it 
rendered  their  situation  desperate. 

And  I  may  be  under  the  necessity  of  informing  your  honour, 
that  this  book  of  discipline  points  to  them,  the  road  to  seek 
redress — it  points  out  the  means  how,  and  where,  to  seek  re- 
dress. And  that  state  of  desperation  must  have  existed  in  the 
mind,  and  not  in  the  reality  of  the  thing;  for  if  disowned  in 
their  own  meeting,  they  could  appeal  to  the  Quarterly;  for 
disownments  are  only  in  the  Monthly;  and  from  the  Quarterly 
they  could  appeal  to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  There  was  another 
grievance,  which  it  was  pretended  was  one  cause  of  this  des- 
peration; it  was,  that  they  had  understood  the  orthodox  were 
making  preparations,  and  endeavouring  to  arrange  their  pro- 
ceedings, so  as  to  exclude  these  persons  from  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing. This  was  one  of  the  grievances  of  which  they  complained. 
But  the  rule  always  has  been,  and  always  will  be,  to  exclude 
all  improper  persons, — all  those  who  do  not  belong  to  the 
society,  including  those  who  have  been  disowned.  The  ortho- 
dox are  the  society;  for  when  they  speak  of  the  orthodox,  they 
speak  solely  of  the  "meeting, — of  those  who  have  in  control 
the  meeting.  And  the  orthodox  never  did  pretend,  in  any  of 
their  consultations  or  conferences,  to  keep  out — they  never  did 
keep  out  any  but  thosowho  ought  to  be  kept  out:  For  it  is 
fully  shown,  that  those  who  are  not  members  should  not  be 
admitted  into  their  select  meetings.  This  complaint  was 
altogether  imaginary.  The  other,  that  they  had  been  dis- 
owned, might  have  been  well-founded;  but  the  latter  was  un- 
founded in  every  particular;  for  there  was  no  design  to  exclude 
any  body  who  was  entitled  to  attend.  But  Mr.  Magar  says, 
one  object  of  their  movement  was,  to  heal  the  breach.  Let  me 
ask,  what  breach?  And  I  make  this  inquiry,  to  meet  what  I 
suppose  will  be  urged  by  the  other  side,  that  they  were  seek- 
ing redress  in  a  lawful  way.  They  were  endeavouring,  says 
Mr.  Magar,  to  adopt  measures  to  heal  the  breach ;  that  is, 
the  disownments,  and  the  cosduct  of  the  society  in  the  laying 
down  of  Monthly  Meetings,  and  protecting  its  select  meeting 
from  intrusion.  Were  these  the  breaches  which  had  brought 
about  that  state  of  desperation,  of  which  they  speak;  and 
which  would  authorize  them  to  call  conferences,  and  with  the 
strong  arm  of  flesh  take  possession  of  the  synagogue  ?  Surely 
not. 

Again,  we  have  shown  the  character  of  these  conferences, 
and,  as  I  think  I  am  bound  to  say,  a  very  unjustifiable  charac- 
ter; for  invitations  were  sent  abroad  from  Plainfield,  to  the 


210 


Trial  of  Friends 


brethren,  wherever  they  might  be,  to  attend  that  conference, 
and  to  attend  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  embracing  all  those  who 
had  been  disowned,  as  well  as  others.  They  were  not  contetit 
with  seeking  what  they  conceived  to  be  a  redress  of  their 
wrongs,  in  the  way  pointed  out  by  the  discipline;  not  content 
with  making  complaint  to  the  heads  and  fathers  of  the  society, 
and  within  their  own  pale,  and  under  their  own  vine  and  fig- 
tree.  They  were  not  content  with  this,  but  went  to  holding 
conferences,  unknown  and  strange  to  the  society.  And  in 
these  conferences  they  invited  disowned  persons,  who,  they 
knew,  were  not  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  meeting.  Two  or 
three  of  the  witnesses  have  placed  great  emphasis  on  these 
two  words— peaceable  and  quiet;  and  there  are  but  one  or  two 
who  have  come  out  openly,  without  shaping  their  words  to 
the  best  advantage;  and  they  will  say,  that  when  recommend- 
ing to  go  to  the  house,  as  heretofore,  it  was  to  be  in  a  peace- 
able and  quiet  manner.  To  acknowledge  more  than  this,  would 
be  to  acknowledge  a  revolutionary  spirit  under  the  rose — that 
they  were  broiling  under  anger;  and  that  this  was  a  proposition 
to  go,  as  heretofore,  with  persons  disowned,  who  should  not  go 
at  all;  that  is,  go  and  make  your  way  into  the  house,  and  into 
the  society,  as  before  you  were  disowned.  This  was  their  in- 
tention; that  disowned  persons  should  array  themselves- at  the 
doors  of  entrance,  and  if  admitted,  well  and  good,  but  if  not, 
then  wait  till  you  shall  be  moved  what  to  do.  Go,  as  hereto- 
fore, disregarding  the  disownments  of  the  society,  for  you  have 
been  wronged.  • 

Peaslee  and  Hilles  had  travelled  through  the  country,  preach- 
ing, and  instilling  into  the  minds  of  the  people  a  revolutionary 
spirit;  and  these  were  the  officers  lo  lead  the  re-organizing 
force.  If  we  got  in,  says  Dr.  Carroll,  we  had  concluded  to 
do  what  should  seem  best. 

Now,  in  the  language  which  these  witnesses  have  used,  we 
are  left  very  much  in  the  dark.  We  did  not  determine  on  any 
thing,  say  the  witnesses,  but  if  we  got  in,  \ve  were  to  do  what 
seemed  best.  If  they  intended  to  do  nothing  which  was  not 
in  accordance  with  the  discipline  of  a  pious  and  Christian 
people,  there  need  have  been  nothing  said  on  the  subject;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  their  language  would  have  been  that  of  un- 
dissembling,  pious  Christians — if  we  get  in,  we  shall  be  satis- 
fied; if  we  get  in,  and  are  permitted  to  participate  with  our 
brethren,  it  is  all  we  ask.  But  I  say  there  was  something 
under  the  rose.  If  we  get  in,  we  will  do  what  seems  best;  we 
will  not  submit  to  the  authority  and  discipline  of  the  society, 
as  peaceable  and  quiet  members,  in  unity  with  our  brethren; 
hut  we  will  do  vv  hat  shall  seem  best.  And  for  that  purpose 
was  David  Hilles  mentioned  for  clerk. 

But  the  Updcgrafts  and  French  do,  in  pretty  plain  Ian- 


at  Stfubenville,  Ohio. 


211 


guage,  say,  that  they  contemplated  a  division  of  the  society. 
They  pretend  that  the  society  was  in  a  desperate  situation; 
and  instead  of  seeking  to  heal  it,  and  unite  with  their  neigh- 
bours, and  not  quarrel  with  them  on  questions  of  faith  or 
tenets,  not  satisfied  to  unite  and  worship  God,  without  dis- 
sention  on  minor  points,  they  did  contemplate  a  division.  And 
why?  If  they  wished  to  divide,  they  were  at  liberty  to  with- 
drawj  there  is  nothing  in  the  book  of  discipline  that  detains 
them  for  a  moment  after  they  lose  their  unity  of  feeling.  There 
is  nothing  to  prevent  their  withdrawing — and  they  might  stay 
away  from  the  meeting  if  they  could  not  accord  with  their 
brethren. 

It  was  a  desperate  state  of  feeling,  when  they  could  contem- 
plate a  division  at  Mount  Pleasant,  where  strangers  were  as- 
sembled from  across  the  water,  and  pious  and  good  Christians 
from  all  quarters  of  our  country,  to  commune  upon  the  inte- 
rests of  the  society,  and  to  worship  God.  How  was  it  possible 
for  pious  Christians  to  contemplate  such  a  division,  to  array 
themselves,  and  create  a  disturbance,  which  was  to  assume 
such  an  appalling,  distressing,  and  awful  aspect.  If  they  did 
not  intend  a  division,  if  they  did  not  intend  to  make  a  disturb- 
ance, if  they  did  not  intend  to  seek  a  re-organization,  which  1 
am  entitled  to  call  a  disorganization,  why  name  a  clerk,  why 
talk  of  him,  and  of  what  should  be  best,  when  they  should  get 
in?  They  had  it  in  view,  and  they  need  not  conceal  it,  if  they 
did  not  get  in,  they  were  to  re-organize  the  meeting.  But  I 
am  bound  to  say,  that  the  idea,  if  they  did  not  get  in,  was  alto- 
gether gratuitous;  it  must  have  existed  only  in  the  cunning  and 
designing  minds  of  Peaslee,  Hilles,  and  their  associates,  for 
there  never  has  been  to  this  day,  a  single  bar  or  latch  against 
them  ;  it  is  an  assumption  of  fact.  A  persecuting  spirit,  on  the 
part  of  the  orthodox,  has  not  been  manifested  in  a  single  in^ 
stance;  and  the  idea  is  thrown  out  to  the  world,  only  to  create 
sympathy,  and  to  bring  around  themselves  a  phalanx  of  dis- 
owned and  disorganizing  people.  And  I  call  on  them  to  say, 
where  there  has  been  one  single  manifestation  of  a  persecuting 
spirit,  of  an  unjust,  unchristian,  ungodly  spirit,  on  the  part  of 
the  orthodox,  towards  their  brethren  who  call  themselves 
Friends. 

There  is,  however,  something  lurking  beneath  all  these  pro- 
ceedings, which,  peradventure,  ought  to  have  mollified  my 
language  a  little  towards  the;Hicksites.  I  cannot  believe  that 
it  is  altogether  a  disorganizing  spirit,  but  I  much  incline  to 
think,  that  the  thing  which  is  said  to  be  the  root  of  all  evil,  is 
at  the  bottom  of  it.  And  I  am  fully  authorized  to  say,  it  is  an 
avaricious  spirit  in  part,  it  is  a  love  of  money,  that  has  urged 
them  on  to  the  measures  which  they  have  pursued.  For,  even 
here,  it  was  supposed,  in  the  outset  of  the  defence,  that  they 


212 


Trial  of  Fi-ienJs 


were  entering  into  a  contest  about  property.  It  is  their  belief, 
that  they  are  contending  about  property.  They  have  talked 
about  property  at  Concord,  and  about  the  Yearly  Meeting 
house  and  property  at  Mount  Pleasant;  and  it  has  been  in 
evidence,  and  before  the  world,  that  the  first  and  most  impor- 
tant measure  of  the  Hicksites,  was,  a  proposition  to  divide  the 
property.  Now  I  did  not  suppose  that  there  existed  an  asso- 
ciation of  Christians  in  our  country,  especially  the  Friends, 
who  would  ever  get  into  a  contention  about  parochial  proper- 
ty. It  is  not  merely  the  devil;  it  is  the  root  of  all  evil,  that  has 
excited  them  to  this  course  of  conduct. 

Did  they  go  in  a  peaceable,  quiet  manner,  as  Christians  should 
go  ;  or  did  they  go  with  those  who  had  been  disowned,  as  they 
had  done  heretofore?  They  went  with  persons  like  James,  who 
had  been  disowned — a  testimony  of  disownment  had  been 
issued  against  him,  and  delivered  to  him.  He  went  under  an 
invitation  from  Plainfield,  disregarding  the  discipline  and  dis- 
ownment of  his  own  Monthly  Meeting. 

But  Hilles  is  said  to  be  a  member.  Hilles'  conduct,  as  a 
member  of  the  society,  is  tinged  with  a  very  dark  hue,  and, 
it  seems  to  me,  by  a  plodding,  calculating  design.  We  see  him 
in  all  these  conferences;  and,  as  a  representative  from  Red- 
stone, attending  the  Yearly  Meeting  for  discipline.  He  sees, 
and  he  knows  his  duty;  for  he  is  learned  and  shrewd.  The 
discipline  says,  it  was  his  duty  to  lodge  the  reports,  which  he 
had  with  him,  in  the  hands  of  the  clerk.  The  discipline  re- 
quired him  to  answer  to  his  name;  but  he  did  not  do  it.  He 
neglected  his  duty  as  a  representative,  and  as  a  member.  And, 
I  ask  your  honour,  wherefore?  It  was  because  he  knew  in  his 
own  mind,  that  it  had  been  determined  to  disorganize  the 
meeting,  and  to  trample  upon  its  discipline.  He  is  sly  and 
cunning.  He  was  playing  the  game  of  an  arch-demagogue. 
He  is  entitled  to  these  remarks,  from  the  course  which  he  has 
pursued. 

We  see  him,  when  waited  on,  after  his  nomination  had  been 
carried  by  acclamation,  hanging  back,  and  pretending  that  he 
would  rather  not;  though,  I  say,  the  previous  design  was,  that 
he  should  be  the  clerk,  and  he  knew  it.  He  objected;  he  was 
so  modest  that  he  could  scarcely  receive  the  honour.  When 
waited  on,  he  was  reluctant;  and  you  are  told  by  all  the  wit- 
nesses, that  he  was  the  most  passive  being  that  ever  was — a 
mere  child  or  babe  in  the  hands  of  his  friends.  But  he  went 
with  them  through  the  crowd,  and  then  could  take  to  himself 
the  old  drawer  of  the  table,  to  write  on — could  call  the  meeting, 
and  act  as  their  organ  and  principal  man;  and  yet,  it  is  said 
that  he  took  no  part,  that  he  had  nothing  to  do — modest,  pious 
soul!  Not  at  all  concerned,  but  was  driven  to  promotion,  just  as 
the  demagogue  is  always  shoved  along.  When  you  look  round, 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


213 


there  is  not  a  single  individual  that  did  shove — nobody  shoved, 
but  all  were  shoved;  there  were  no  shovers  in  the  business; 
they  were  all  shovees.  I  do  say,  the  thing  is  a  perfect  farce; 
and  I  put  it  to  him,  who  has  ever  felt  that  he  had  *a  soul  to  be 
saved,  who  ever  felt  it  possible  for  him  to  be  blessed  in  a  future 
state,  or  who  believes  in  a  future  state  of  happiness  or  misery, 
if  he  could,  at  such  a  moment,  in  the  presence  of  his  God,  con- 
duct in  such  a  manner.  It  is  a  scandal  upon  the  religion  which 
we  profess.  And  the  Mr.  Pierce  who  has  testified,  seems  to 
me  to  have  never  thought  that  he  had  a  God.  It  must  be  im- 
possible, that  those  guilty  of  such  conduct  ever  felt  the  spirit 
of  religion;  if  so,  I  hope  I  never  shall  be  tainted  with  it. 

But  James  was  not  a  member  of  the  society;  he  had  once 
been;  but  whether  he  was  once  humble,  and  truly  religious, 
and  holy  in  his  walk  and  life,  I  know  not.  If  he  has  been, 
he  certainly  is  a  fallen  spirit.  He  has  been  disowned,  as  is 
shown  by  the  testimony  ;  and  I  can  view  him  in  no  other  light 
than  as  a  real  valiant  lad,  ready  to  enlist  in  any  crusade  where 
he  might  chance  to  better  his  situation;  for  worse  could  not 
be;  and  he  enlisted  under  Peaslee  and  Hilles.  They  called  in 
the  scattered  tribes;  and  under  these  banners  he  was  going 
up  to  seek  redress;  for  after  he  got  to  the  highest  seat  in  the 
synagogue,  he  said,  "I  was  told  this  was  the  way  to  get  re- 
dress." By  whom  was  he  told  that  that  was  the  way  to  get 
redress,  in  that  tumultuous  way,  in  the  house  of  God,  press- 
ing forward,  and  taking  the  highest  seat.''  Was  that  the  way 
for  a  Christian  to  seek  redress?  and  is  it  pretended  that  he 
was  a  follower  of  Elias  Hicks?  I  fear  the  doctrines  of  Elias 
Hicks  lead  to  such  piety  as  that.  I  cannot  fathom  Elias  Hicks' 
doctrine  any  more  than  I  can  deism. 

All  who  have  heard  this  investigation,  have  anticipated 
something  of  the  defence  which  will  be  set  up  by  Hilles  and 
James.  But,  from  the  course  already  pursued  by  the  oppo- 
site counsel,  I  can  hardly  flatter  myself  with  any  thing  like  a 
reasonable  conjecture  of  what  course  they  will  pursue  in  fu- 
ture. But  it  does  become  me,  out  of  courtesy  to  the  gentle- 
men, to  state  what  I  suppose  will  be  their  defence,  that  they 
may  understand  how  I,  as  one,  would  resist  the  position  which 
the  prosecution  has  taken.  I  shall,  therefore,  notice  some  of 
the  prominent  grounds  which  the  gentlemen  v/iil  take,  to  show 
that  their  clients  are  innocent,  and  not  obnoxious. 

I  suppose  they  will  rely  on  the  fact,  that  Hilles  is  a  member  of 
Redstone  Quarterly  Meeting ;  that  he  was  a  representative,  and 
therefore  entitled  to  all  the  rights  of  a  regular  member,in  the  ex- 
ercise of  those  rights.  James,  they  would  probably  say,  though 
disowned,  was  irregularly  disowned.  But  that,  it  seems  to 
me,  is  not  a  matter  for  discussion.  I  think  the  relation  of 
Hilles  to  the  society,  renders  him  far  the  more  culpable  of  the 
27 


Tridi  of  F ritiiJs 


two  iiidiviJuals.  And  il'  I  am  correct,  that  there  was  a  dis- 
turbance of  the  meeting,  acting-  under  the  clerkship  of  Taylor, 
and  if,  in  thai  disturbance,  Hilles  and  James  were  participa- 
tors, were  1  silting  as  a  judge,  clothed  with  plenary  power,  I 
should  inflicl  double  punishment  on  Hilles.  There  is  a  mani- 
fest difference  between  aiv  ignorant,  unlearned  man,  (and  I  be- 
lieve James  to  be  such  a  one,)  acting  under  a  belief  that  he 
had  been  wronged  and  injured,  and  one  who  is  learned,  talent- 
ed, and  shrewd;  in  full  communion  with  a  large  society,  acting 
knowingly  against  their  discipline,  and  against  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  the  society,  and  evidently  willing  to  prostrate  its 
best  interests.  Such,  it  appears  to  me,  has  been  the  conduct 
of  Hilles;  for  he  knew  the  discipline;  he  knew  that  he  was 
wrong;  he  knew  the  course  pursued  must  have  a  tendency  to 
widen  the  breach,  and  render  desperation  more  desperate. 
He  knew  that  it  would  have  a  tendency  to  throw  the  society 
into  still  greater  confusioi>;  and  the  most  common  capacity 
must  allow,  that  such  a  course  would  have  a  tendency  to  make 
the  division  irreconcilable.  It  was  like  opening  a  wide  and 
broad  gulf  between  brethren  of  the  same  faith,  impassable  in 
this  world  ;-— in  the  next,  there  are  no  gulfs  to  pass! 

James  claims  no  distinction ;  he  was  once  an  ordinary  and 
humble  member  belonging  to  the  society;  but  he  has  been 
disowned,  and,  in  his  zeal  and  blindness,  he  may  have  been 
led  to  suppose,  unjustly  disowned.  He  had  been  advised,  and 
under  the  feelings  of  remorse,  disappointment,  or  mortifica- 
tion, he  may  have  supposed  that  he  was  in  the  right  way  to 
restore  himself  to  his  privileges.  In  Hilles,  we  might  have 
well  looked  for  a  different  course.  But  I  think  it  irkvmaterial 
whether  one  or  both  were  members  of  the  society.  It  is  a 
matter  of  total  indifference  in  this  stage  of  the  question,  whe- 
ther they  were  members  or  not. 

I  have  understood,  the  common  opinion  is,  abroad,  that,  as 
Hilles  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  member,  if  James  were  in  a 
like  situation,  this  prosecution  must  faij.  That  opinion,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  illegal,  and  irrationally  founded.  I  will  sup- 
pose, for  a  moment,  that  I  am  a  member  of  one  of  the  socie- 
ties in  this  town,  Episcopalian,  Presbyterian,  or  Methodist,  in 
full  communion  with  them;  and  that,  during  divine  worship, 
I  should  get  up  and  undertake  to  make  a  preachment,  sermon, 
or  exhortation,  and  in  that  way  (Jisturb  the  people,  so  that 
they  would  necessarily  disperse,  and  should  manifest  a  deter- 
mination and  design  to  disturb  the  meeting,  and  assert  that  I 
had  a  right  to  do  it — would  not  the  statute  punish  me?  Is  it 
not  preposterous  to  suppose,  that  a  statute  should  be  so  framed 
as  to  have  no  power  over  those  belonging  to  the  society,  to 
say  to  them,  that  they  shall  not  disturb  the  society?  It  is 
preposterous  to  suppose  that  a  member  is  not  capable  of  dis- 


at  Sleubenville,  Ohw. 


515 


turbing  the  body,  because  lie  has  a  right  of  membership.  I 
should  be  as  capable  of  disturbing  the  society  to  which  I  be- 
long, as  the  utmost  stranger. 

Hilles,  being  a  member,  was  under  a  double  obligation;  I 
might  say  under  a  threefold  obligation.  He  had  pledged  him- 
self, in  as  solemn  a  pledge  as  he  could  make;  he  had  agreed 
to  be  governed  by  the  discipline;  he  was  under  an  obligation 
to  submit,  and  not  create  disturbance.  He  was  under  another 
obligation,  from  the  fact  that  he  professes  godliness  of  life. 
And  in  a  third  respect,  as  holding  a  conspicuous  station  in 
the  society.  On  all  these  accounts  he  was  bound,  by  every 
principle  that  binds  us  in  this  life,  to  have  conducted  in  a 
mild  and  Christian  manner. 

I  have  heard  much  said,  as  to  the  majority  at  the  late 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  the  majority  of  the  society  at  large;  but 
what  has  that  to  do  with  the  case?  I  have,  I  think,  satisfied 
your  honour,  that  these  defendants  have  not  the  excuse,  for 
acting  as  they  did,  in  acquiescing  in  the  proposition  of  French, 
or  the  nomination  of  Hilles,  that  there  was  a  majority  on  their 
side;  for  it  has  been  shown  that  the  majority  was  on  the  or- 
thodox side.  It  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  thetr  feelings  were 
opposed  to  these  proceedings;  and  yet  they  talk  about  ma- 
jority. 

But  there  is  one  position,  taken  by  Peter  Askew,  that 
it  seems  the  defence  will  not  agree  to,  in  relation  to  laying 
down  Concord  Monthly  Meeting  against  its  consent.  He 
takes  it,  that  all  those  who  do  not  speak  in  favour  of  a  propo- 
sition, are  against  it.  And  if  that  rule  is  to  apply  to  Hilles, 
his  appointment  was  lost  by  about  twelve  hundred.  This  is 
a  rule  which  Peter  Askew  takes  for  correct;  for  he  says,  in  re- 
lation to  Concord,  that  there  were  only  four  voices  in  favour 
of  the  measure,  and  all  the  rest  were  to  be  taken  of  course  as 
against  it.  So  that  I  know  not  what  is  to  be  understood  by 
majorities.  By  their  arithmetic,  it  would  seem  that  they  have 
a  majority  in  the  United  States,  and  in  the  world;  and  that, 
therefore,  they  had  a  right  to  enter  the  house  contrary  to  dis- 
cipline. Do  they  say  they  had  a  majority  in  that  house  ? 
Then  I  rgfer  to  the  facts,  as  established  by  Dr.  Hamilton  and 
others,  to  show  that  they  had  not  a  majority.  Dr.  Carroll 
calculated  their  numbers  at  about  four  hundred.  But,  it  is 
said,  they  had  a  majority  of  voices.  We  have  only  to  answer, 
that  the  noise  was  altogether  in  their  favour;  the  disturbance 
■was  in  their  favour;  and,  if  they  please,  they  may  take  all  that 
was  said;  "Go  ahead,  or  burst  your  boiler:"  "Hurra  for 
Jackson,"  &c.  They  may  take  the  whole.  But  this  only  shows 
the  blindness  or  evil  design  of  the  defendants,  in  the  course 
they  have  pursued. 

1  hat  they  were  seeking  redress  for  grievances,  is  another 
objection  to  be  made;  and  upon  this,  wc  have  but  little  to  say. 


216 


Trial  of  Friends 


But  it  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  so  many  men  of  standing  and 
information,  and  with  such  counsel  as  they  have,  the  first  in 
the  country,  and  the  oldest  at  the  bar,  should  contend  that 
these  defendants  are  suffering  under  wrongs,  originated  by 
the  discipline,  yet,  never  have  sought  redress  by  the  disci- 
pline. They  declare  that  they  have,  throughout  the  country, 
a  majority;  and  insist  that  the  society  is  a  democracy;  and 
yet,  they  can  seek  redress  in  no  other  way,  but  by  force;  in  no 
other  way,  but  by  trampling  on  the  discipline,  and  getting 
into  power,  as  Hilles  took  his  seat.  If  they  are  a  majority, 
and  they  have  suffered  wrong,  let  them  wait  with  patience, 
like  humble,  pious  Christians — the  day  is  coming,  when  they 
must  have  power,  in  every  Preparative,  Monthly,  Quarterly, 
and  Yearly  Meeting.  It  argues  against  their  principles,  wis- 
dom, and  character,  that  they  have  not  gone  to  the  fountain 
head — but  they  have  not  waited;  they  have  shown  themselves 
ten  times  more  disorderly,  and  ten  times  more  ungovernable 
than  the  Jacksonians  are  charged  to  be,  for  the  Jacksonians 
have  waited  till  the  polls  came  round;  and  why  did  not  the 
Hicksites  wait  till  the  polls  came  round?  Why  have  they  not 
pursued  the  course,  which  the  discipline,  which  common 
sense,  and  the  law  point  out?  It  is  no  excuse  that  they  have 
suffered  wrong,  by  disownments,  and  the  laying  down  of 
Monthly  Meetings.  This  is  all  a  stratagem;  and  their  pro- 
clamations to  the  world,  about  disownments  and  the  laying 
down  of  meetings,  is  only  to  create  a  fervour  of  feeling  in  the 
community  in  their  behalf,  and  to  bring  around  them  every 
disaffected  member,  who  may  chance  to  come  within  the 
sound  of  the  proclamation  from  Plainfield.  Come  hither,  all 
ye  disowned,  and  we  will  seek  redress  in  our  very  sanctuary, 
in  the  Yearly  Meeting — in  the  most  important  meeting  of  the 
society. 

They  have  again  raised  another  hue  and  cry  agiainst  the 
orthodox,  on  account  of  door-keepers,  and  pretend  they  have 
discovered  something  unusual.  They  pretend  that  these  door- 
keepers were  to  prevent  the  Hicksites  from  the  enjoyment  of 
their  lawful  rights;  but  it  is  altogether  a  fetch.  You  are  told 
that  the  appointment  of  door-keepers  is  a  usage  of  long  stand- 
ing, and  that  there  is  nothing  new  in  this  instance,  except  it 
be  in  the  number.  And  this  is  easily  accounted  for,  by  the 
larger  number  of  people  from  all  quarters.  It  was  thought 
necessary  to  increase  the  numbers,  because  they  were  more 
liable  to  be  imposed  on — as  they  have  been.  It  was  necessary 
for  them,  when  they  saw  the  course  that  was  pursuing  by  the 
other  party,  to  send  door-keepers  from  different  quarters;  be- 
cause those  from  Short  Creek  would  not  know  who  to  admit 
or  reject.  And  I  should  suppose  that  a  satisfactory  reason  to 
any  man.    And,  perhaps,  there  is  no  better  way  than  to  test 


at  Sleubenville^  Ohio. 


217 


the  thing  by  what  occurs  afterwards,  as  rtspects  a  design, 
when  we  cannot  know  the  motive.  We  know  there  were  at 
this  Yearly  Meeting  an  unusual  number,  striving  to  get, in, 
who  were  disowned,  and  not  entitled  to  admittance.  We  see 
by  this,  that  the  anticipations  of  those  in  office  were  well 
founded,  and  that  they  had  good  reason  to  make  arrange 
ments5  and  their  proceedings  cannot  extenuate  the  conduct  of 
the  defendants.  And  how  do  they  stand  excused  or  palliated 
in  their  conduct,  from  the  fact,  that  those  whose  business  it 
was,  anticipated  difficulties,  and  took  the  necessary  precau- 
tion? It  might  answer  where  no  other  excuse  could  be  had: 
according  to  the  old  adage,  "a  poor  excuse  is  better  than 
none."  If  there  were  dissatisfaction  existing,  why  not  seek 
the  proper  redress  by  appealing  from  one  meeting  to  another? 
They  were  bound  so  to  do.  And  if  they  did  not  do  it,  they 
have  no  cause  for  grumbling. 

I  am  aware,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  gentleman  has 
examined  Mr.  Scholfield,  and  read  his  testimony  of  disown- 
ment,  that  he  will  indulge  in  some  remarks  upon  it.  And  as 
a  subject  of  remark,  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  suggest  a  few 
ideas,  against  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  course  which  will  be 
pursued  by  the  gentleman.  I  recollect  the  emphatic  manner 
in  which  he  pronounced  some  of  the  words  in  Scholfield's  tes- 
timony. 

I  beg  leave  simply  to  remark,  that  this  society,  like  all 
others,  is  founded  on  some  certain  known  or  established 
tenets  or  doctrines  of  faith.  And  when  a  member  unites  with 
a  society,  he  pledges  to  them  his  faith,  and  his  belief  as  a 
Christian.  To  act  in  harmony  and  Christian  love,  the  members 
of  a  society  should  be  of  one  faith  and  belief.  It  is  the  true 
foundation  on  which  they  unite.  And  it  can  be  no  cause — 
and  I  am  yet  to  learn  that  any  rational  being  should  sup- 
pose it  a  cause,  of  resentment  or  ill  will,  when  they  charge 
a  brother  with  having  denied  the  faith,  and  he  having  assented 
to  it,  that  they  should  disown  him.  I  would  not  go  into  an  in- 
vestigation— but  the  gentleman  has  offi;red  this,  and  read 
that  part  which  relates  to  a  book  of  sermons  attributed  to 
Elias  Hicks,  in  that  emphatic  manner,  which  will  lead  to  the 
supposition  that  there  had  been  a  disownment,  because  the 
member  did  not  conform  to  every  one  of  their  particular 
tenets — which  is  not  the  fact.  There  is  a  book  of  sermons 
that  contains  doctrines  directly  the  reverse  of  the  doctrines  in 
the  discipline^  as  diverse  as  Unitarianism  is  from  Trinita- 
rianism.  And  the  attempt,  to  which  they  will  be  led,  to  place 
the  orthodox  party  in  the  light  of  inquisitors,  will  fail  before 
an  enlightened  public,  though  it  may  gain  credit  in  the  chim- 
ney corner.  There  is  a  text  in  this  discipline  which  I  feel 
bound  to  read,  as  it  is  one  of  the  grounds  on  which  members 


218 


Ti  iat  of  Friends 


arc  subject  to  disownmenl.    1  am  bouiul  lo  read  it  in  defence 
of  my  clients. 

"  If  any  in  inetnbershii)  with  us  shall  blaspheme,  or  speak  piofanelj'  of 
Almighty  God,  Christ  Jesus,  or  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  they  ought  to  be  timely 
and  earnestly  treated  with  for  the  convincement  of  their  understandings, 
that  they  may  experience  repentance  and  forgiveness;  but  should  any, 
notwithstanding  such  brotherly  labour,  persist  in  their  error,  or  deny  the 
divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  immediate  revelation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures;  as  it  will  be  thereby 
manifest  that  they  are  not  one  in  faith  with  us,  the  Monthly  Meetings 
where  they  belong,  ought,  after  the  aforesaid  earnest  and  religious  en- 
deavours without  effect,  to  declare  the  same,  and  issue  their  testimony  ac- 
cordingly."— (_Ohio  Discipline,  page  22.) 

Ellas  Hicks,  in  speaking  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  says: 
"  He  was  only  an  outward  Saviour  that  healed  their  outward  diseases, 
and  gave  them  strength  of  body,  to  enjoy  that  outward  good  land."  "  It  was 
the  soul  that  wanted  salvation;  but  this  no  outward  Saviour  could  do,  no 
external  Saviour  could  have  any  hand  in  it."  In  another  place:  "  If  we  be- 
lieve that  God  is  equal  and  righteous  in  all  his  ways,  that  he  has  made  of 
one  blood  all  the  families  that  dwell  upon  the  earth,  it  is  impossible  that  \ 
he  should  be  partial;  and  therefore  he  has  been  as  willing  to  reveal  his 
will  to  every  creature,  as  he  was  to  our  first  parents;  to  Moses  and  the 
Prophets;  to  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  He  never  can  set  any  of  these 
above  us;  because  if  he  did,  he  would  be  partial." — {Hicks'  Sermons, 
Parker's  edition,  pp.  50,  292.) 

Without  saying  who  is  right,  or  who  is  wrong,  of  these 
Friends,  in  relation  to  tenets,  which  they  hold  so  near  and  dear 
to  their  souls,  I  see  not  how  they  could  retain  unity  with  a  man 
who  professes  the  sentiments  of  Elias  Hicks.  Yet,  for  these 
disownments,  secret  conclaves  are  held,  and  re-organizing 
conferences;  and  the  synagogue  itself  is  to  be  turned  into  a 
den  of  thieves.  And  these  men  are  said,  and  will  be  said  to 
have  been,  persecuted. 

There  is  another  objection  upon  which  that  gentleman  may 
enlighten  the  court,  if  not  amuse  it — it  is  thought  worse  than 
all,  the  laying  down  of  Monthly  Meetings,  without  the  consent 
of  their  members.  Upon  this  subject,  I  remark,  barely  to  do 
away  the  false  impressions  that  may  at  first  view  arise  from 
the  Monthly  Meeting's  being  laid  down,  without  the  consent 
of  those  that  compose  it,  especially  of  a  pure  democracy — I 
will  show,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  discipline,  which  re- 
quires a  Quarter  to  have  the  assent  of  those  composing  the 
Monthly  Meeting. 

"No  Quarterly  Meeting  should  be  set  up,  or  laid  down,  without  the 
consent  of  the  Yearly  Meeting;  no  Monthly  Meeting,  without  the  consent 
of  the  Quarterly  Meeting;  nor  any  Preparative,  or  other  meeting  for  busi- 
ness or  worship,  until  application  to  the  Monthly  Meeting  be  first  made; 
and,  when  there  approved,  the  consent  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  be  also  ' 
obtained." — {Book  of  Discipline,  29.) 

Now  the  court  will  perceive,  according  to  the  legal  con- 
struction, that  the  consent  of  the  Monthly  Meeting  is  not 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


219 


necessary,  on  account  of  the  previous  clause.  It  is  not  to  be 
found  in  the  whole  discipline,  that  a  Monthly  Meeting  cannot 
be  laid  down  without  the  consent  of  its  members.  [Here  Mr. 
Goodnow  spoke  of  the  Philadelphia  discipline,  as  being  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  Ohio,  in  relation  to  the  power  of  Quarterly 
over  Monthly  Meetings;  but  having  evidently  received  a  wrong 
impression  upon  the  subject,  the  statement  was  corrected  by 
his  colleague,  Mr.  Wright,  and  the  similarity  of  the  two  dis- 
ciplines acknowledged  by  Mr.  Goodnow.] 

We  have  from  Baltimore  an  example  given  on  the  part  of 
the  defendants,  in  which  a  Quarterly  Meeting  has  laid  down 
a  Monthly  Meeting  without  its  consent,  and  against  its  con- 
sent. If  there  be  any  objection  to  this  position,  it  must  he  for 
the  reason,  that  the  Quarterly  Meeting  was  advised  by  the 
Yearly  Meeting.  Because  by  the  discipline,  there  and  here, 
the  Yearly  Meeting  is  not  the  tribunal — the  Yearly  Meeting 
cannot  lay  down.  And,  I  say,  if  the  Quarterly  had  refused, 
the  Yearly  Meeting  could  not  have  laid  down  the  Monthly 
Meeting  in  that  instance.  It  would  have  been  a  departure 
from  the  correct  order  of  proceeding,  a  violation  of  the  first 
principles  of  their  known  civil  and  ecclesiastical  polity;  be- 
cause the  Monthly  Meetings  are  constituents  of  the  Quarters, 
and  the  Quarterlies  of  the  Yearly  Meeting;  and  it  is  not  in  the 
power  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  to  jump  over  a  Quarter,  and 
prostrate  a  Monthly  Meeting.  But  it  is  in  the  power  of  a 
Quarterly  Meeting  to  lay  down  a  Monthly  Meeting.  What, 
I  ask,  would  be  the  converse  of  this  proposition?  If  a  Quarterly 
may  not  lay  down  a  Monthly,  it  might  become  most  disorderly 
and  inconsistent  in  its  practices,  there  might  be  an  entire 
departure  from  the  established  order  of  the  society — and  yet» 
it  is  said,  the  Quarterly,  which  is  the  supervisory  power, 
could  not  lay  it  down.    Such  an  idea  is  preposterous. 

But  in  answer  to  both  positions,  the  complaint  against  dis- 
ownments,  and  laying  down  of  Monthly  Meetings,  is  all  pro- 
vided for  by  going  to  the  Quarterly  and  Yearly  Meetings. 
When  a  Monthly  Meeting  is  laid  clown,  he  who  suffers  a 
grievance  has  a  right  of  admission  into  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and 
q.  right  to  make  his  grievances  known.  This  is  the  known, 
uniform,  and  established  usage  of  the  society.  Any  member 
feeling  aggrieved,  no  matter  whether  he  l)elong  to  the  Meet- 
ing for  Sufferings,  the  meeting  of  ministers  and  elders — if  he 
belong  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  he  has  a  right  to  be  heard. 
Such  is  the  language  of  all  the  witnesses,  and  such  we  con- 
cede. There  was,  then,  a  way  pointed  out  for  redress  ;  and, 
I  think,  neither  of  these  questions  can  form  any  legitimate 
part  in  the  merits  of  this  case.  First,  disownments  are  in 
the  ecclesiastical  court,  and  this  court  has  no  supervisory 
power  in  those  cases,     I  will  not  say  that  no  case  could  be 


220 


Trial  of  Friendi 


named,  in  which  this  court  might  not  have  such  power.  I 
may  liken  it  to  a  jtidgment  incidentally  brought  into  view;  it 
must  stand  good  while  on  its  face  it  is  fair,  and  cannot  be  inci- 
dentally impeached  ;  so,  if  the  laying  down  of  a  Monthly 
Meeting,  except  from  the  book  of  discipline,  the  court  could 
be  advised,  that  the  society,  or  its  laws,  come  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  municipal  law  of  the  state:  and  your  honour 
would  be  bound  to  abide  by  it,  unless  some  rule  be  brought  to 
show  that  they  have  been  wrongfully  laid  down; — there  cannot 
be  a  question  in  any  shape,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  these 
were  members  of  the  society,  that  they  have  suffered  wrong, 
and  that  they  are  seeking  redress  in  a  law-ful  manner,  accord- 
ing to  the  discipline.  Here,  then,  it  seems  to  me,  sufficient 
has  been  shown  to  make  it  a  clear  case,  that  it  was  these  de- 
fendants, in  connexion  with  their  associates,  who  carried  on 
the  disturbance  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  on  the  eighth  of  Sep- 
tember. If  that  be  the  fact,  they  must  fall  under  the  animad- 
version of  the  statute.  That  spirit  which,  on  the  part  of  the 
Hicksites,  manifested  itself  at  Redstone,  Plainfield,  and  at  the 
school  house  in  Mount  Pleasant,  that  combination  does  not, 
and  cannot  receive  credence  and  sanction  in  this  court,  at  the 
hands  of  your  honour,  so  as  to  exculpate  the  individuals 
charged.  Their  crime  is  not  lessened  in  consequence  of  the 
number  engaged  with  them.  If  two  had  made  the  disturb- 
ance, so  far  as  two  could  have  created  so  much  disturbance,  I 
ask,  if  the  case  would  not  have  been  palpably  clear?  Then  do 
numbers  lessen  the  guilt,  or  excuse  the  defendants,  in  the  acts 
of  uniting,  pressing  forward,  taking  the  drawer  of  the  table, 
and  proceeding,  as  they  did,  to  open  a  meeting?  Certainly 
not. 

It  is  a  combination  which  seems  composed,  not  only  of  dis- 
cordant materials,  but  knit  together  by  no  sentiments  of  unity. 
Their  actions  manifest  a  spirit  of  revolution  and  re-organiza- 
tion, and  a  determination  to  seek  a  participation  in  the  pro- 
perty and  meetings  composing  this  large  society.  And  when 
they  pretend  that  a  clerk  has  no  authority,  other  than  any  in- 
dividual member,  how  strange  do  their  actions  appear.  Their 
whole  struggle  was  to  get  a  clerk.  They  thought,  if  they 
could  get  a  clerk  of  their  stamp,  they  were  safe;  and  yet.  they 
say  the  clerk  is  no  more  than  an  ordinary  member. 

If  they  had  no  views  but  those  of  passive,  quiet  members  of 
society,  why  such  combinations,  such  consultations,  pomp, 
and  preparations;  why  so  much  parade,  as  if  going  to  vvar.^  I 
say,  if  there  was  no  oijject  but  the  support  of  the  society  upon 
pure  principles — to  maintain  the  society  in  its  integrity,  why 
not  take  their  seats  quietly,  and  then  there  would  have  been  no 
dislurbance.  If  it  had  not  been  for  the  proposition  of  French, 
all  agree  there  would  have  been  no  difficulty  in  the  meeting. 


at  SteiibenviilK,  (JIiid. 


221 


If  their  object  were  such  as  is  pretended,  why  seek  to  remove 
the  clerk,  and  why  pursue  the  course  they  did?  There  was 
nothing  to  prevent  their  entering;  they  had  not  been  denied, 
they  had  not  been  threatened,  they  had  not  been  ill-treated. 

To  say  the  most,  those  who  had  followed  Elias  Hicks,  in 
some  of  his  doctrines,  directly  contrary  to  the  discipline;  those 
who  had  manifested,  by  their  lives  and  conversation,  a  dis- 
union with  the  body  of  the  society,  have  been  treated,  not 
as  culprits,  not  as  wicked  men,  not  as  infidels,  not  as  pa- 
gans|  they  have  been  treated  as  men  en  joying  the  same  rights 
and,  privileges  as  the  orthodox.  They  are  only  told,  in  a  spi- 
rit of  Christian  love,  your  doctrines  are  in  discordance  with 
ours,  and  you  have  broken  the  bond  of  union,  and,  by  the  dis- 
cipline, you  stand  condemned.  And  we  only  testify  to  the 
world;  and,  to  preserve  our  society  from  the  scandal  and  slan- 
der of  the  world,  we  are  bound  to  publish  far  and  near, 
that  we  have  no  unity  with  you.  We  pronounce  no  anathe- 
mas, we  give  you  no  evil  name;  wc  only  ask  you  to  leave  us, 
and  establish  yourselves  where  you  please,  and  unite  with 
whom  you  please.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with  those  who  do 
not  unite  with  us.  This  is  all  that  has  been  said  upon  the 
subject. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  suggest,  that  if  these  defendants  are 
not  within  the  statute,  as  disturbers  of  that  meeting,  it  does 
seem  to  me,  we  can  hardly  imagine  a  case  in  which  the  sta- 
tute would  apply.  And  if  there  is  not  in  the  statute  sufficient 
to  meet  this  case — if  a  case  like  this,  as  testified  to  by  the 
witnesses,  where  the  disturbance  was  so  great  as  to  be  painful 
and  appalling  to  the  spectator — if  our  laws  have  no  provision 
or  protection,  no  means  furnished  to  magistrates  to  control 
such  proceedings,  I  ask,  what  is  the  state  of  our  society.^ 
There  is  not  a  church  in  this  village,  nor  in  the  United  States, 
that  may  not  experience  the  same.  And  this  revolutionary 
spirit  may  ride  triumphant  from  Maine  to  Georgia.  For  what 
is  there  to  do,  what  is  there  wanting,  in  those  who  happen  to 
be  disowned,  those  who  happen  to  become  alien  to  the  faith 
which  they  have  espoused,  but  to  organize,  and  march  in  solid 
columns,  and  depose  the  presiding  officers? 

If  the  law  will  not  protect  societies  against  abuses  of  this 
kind,  there  is  no  safety  or  protection  in  the  laws  of  the  land. 
Liberty  of  conscience  is  at  once  at  an  end.  And  we  do  appeal 
to  your  honour,  for  the  necessity,  if  this  case  be  within  the 
statute,  of  exemplary  punishment.  And  if  the  defendants 
would  seek  redress  of  their  supposed  grievances  in  the  society, 
they  must  seek  it  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  polity,  which 
they  have  been  instrumental  in  establishing. 

This  storm  has  been  for  some  time  rising  and  raging.  It 
has  been  gathering  in  the  horizon  for  some  time;  it  is  now 
28 


I'l  idl  of  I'riemls 


one  in  tlic  courts  above.  It  is  to  this  that  they  allude.  When 
assembled  together,  they  first  sit  in  silence,  looking  to  the 
all-seeing  eye  of  their  gracious  Lord  above.  Thus  unity  is 
all-important  to  be  preserved;  it  is  on  this  union,  and  a  right 
understanding  of  this  union,  this  one  democratic  power  per- 
vading each  body,  that  we  are  to  understand,  and  by  which 
only  we  can  understand,  how  this  society  could  be  kept  to- 
gether for  the  time  they  have.  If  questions  were  carried  by 
majorities,  if  representatives  could  legislate  upon  them,  re- 
gardless of  the  rest  of  the  meeting,  if  they  did  not  profess 
to  require  the  unity  or  concurrence  of  the  whole  meeting, 
in  laws  Avhich  are  to  operate  upon  the  society,  instead  of 
being  united  from  1671,  or  for  more  than  150  years,  from 
the  foundation  down  to  the  present  time,  they  would  have 
split  into  as  many  pieces  as  Joseph's  coat  was  torn  into. 
It  is  on  that  principle  that  the  society  is  to  be  considered, 
in  its  Monthly,  Quarterly,  and  Yearly  Meetings.  To  show 
that  I  am  right,  I  will  beg  leave  to  refer  the  court  to  some 
of  the  authorities,  showing  that  these  meetings  were  origi- 
nally Monthly,  and  in  process  of  time  Quarterly,  which  were 
composed  of  Monthly  Meetings;  and  members  who  were 
within  a  convenient  distance,  were  expected  to  attend  the  gene- 
ral meeting.  And  here  is  a  matter  of  some  kind  of  importance 
in  the  progress  of  tHis  suit.  The  general  meetings  had  their 
origin,  not  from  any  representatives  at  all.  The  first  and 
largest  meetings  that  took  place,  were  Meetings  for  Suffer- 
ings. Owing  to  the  peculiar  stat«e  of  concerns  in  England,  it 
was  deemed  necessary  to  have  these  meetings.  They  met, 
therefore,  frequently;  and  of  them  we  hear  frequently;  but 
previous  to  these.  Quarterly  Meetings  had  given  their  epis- 
tles, which  being  agreed  on,  these  meetings  took  place.  The 
first  meetings  therefore  that  were  had,  were  meetings  called 
together  for  general  consultation,  upon  all  the  matters  relating 
to  the  society. 

We  find  a  general  meeting  in  1659,  another  in  1671-2,  but 
not  in  any  degree  of  order  till  1677.  And  in  America,  the  first 
general  meeting,  1671-2,  in^Rhode  Island,  personally  superin- 
tended by  George  Fox,  at  Pawtuxet;  and  thence  removed  to 
Baltimore.  From  looking  into  the  origin  of  these  meetings, 
and  I  refer  to  Gough  vol.  2,  page  163,  and  Fox's  Jour- 
nal, vol.  2,  page  144,  150,  we  find  that  these  assemblies, 
took  place  originally,  without  deputies ;  or  if  they  attend- 
ed, they  were  persons  bringing  epistles  from  their  friends 
at  large,  stating  their  concerns.  And  here  we  shall  find 
that  the  real  object  of  the  assembling  of  these  people,  by 
way  of  general  meeting,  was,  the  promotion  of  greater  har- 
mony and  unity  in  the  society  all  over  the  world.  When  they 


4 


at  Steubcnvilic,  Ohio. 


225 


first  commenced  establishing  Yearly  Meetings,  vvc  find  by 
their  books,  that  deputies  were  sent  up,  charged  with  con- 
cerns. The  term  deputies  was  used  indifferently  with  that 
of  representatives,  as  the  writer  happened  to  think  of  the  one 
or  the  other.  At  that  time,  and  I  undertake  to  show,  that 
down  to  this  time,  they  were  liut  the  organs  of  communication 
between  the  two  meetings.  I  think  the  court  will  agree  with 
me,  that  my  construction  is  the  true  one,  from  the  authority  to 
which  the  gentleman  has  referred  us.  I  take  the  first  volume 
of  Clarkson,  page  208. 

"At  length  the  day  arrives  for  the  Monthly  Meeting.  The  deputies 
make  ready  to  execute  the  duties  committed  to  their  trust.  They  repair, 
each  set  of  them,  to  their  respective  places  of  meeting.  Here  a  number 
of  Quakers,  of  different  ages,  and  both  sexes,  from  their  different  divisions, 
repair  also.  It  is  expected  that  all,  who  can  conveniently  attend,  should 
be  present  on  this  occasion. 

"When  they  are  collected  at  the  meeting  house,  which  was  said  to  have 
been  fixed  upon  in  each  division,  a  meeting  for  worship  takes  place.  All 
persons,  both  men  and  women,  attend  together.  But  when  this  meeting  is 
over,  they  separate  into  different  apartments,  for  the  purposes  of  the  disci- 
pline; the  men  to  transact  by  themselves  the  business  of  the  men,  and  of  their 
own  district;  the  women,  to  transact  that  which  is  more  limited,  namely, 
such  as  belongs  to  their  own  sex." 

Also,  pages  2 1 0  and  2 11 . 

"In  transacting  this  and  other  business  of  the  society,  all  members  pre- 
sent are  allowed  to  speak. 

"The  poorest  man  in  the  meeting  house, though  he  may  be  receiving 
charitable  contributions  at  the  time,  is  entitled  to  deliver  his  sentiments 
upon  any  point. 

"  He  may  bring  forward  new  matter.  He  may  approve  or  object  to  what 
others  have  proposed  before  him.  No  person- may  interrupt  him  while  he 
speaks. 

"  The  youth  who  are  sitting  by,  are  gaining  a  knowledge  of  the  affairs 
and  discipline  of  the  society,  and  are  gradually  acquiring  sentiments  and 
habits  that  are  to  mark  their  character  in  life.  They  learn,  in  the  first 
place,  the  duty  of  a  benevolent  and  respectful  consideration  for  the  poor. 
In  hearing  the  different  cases  argued  and  discussed,  they  learn,  in  some 
measure,  the  rudiments  of  justice,  and  imbibe  opinions  of  the  necessity  of 
moral  conduct.  In  these  courts  they  learn  to  reason;  they  learn  also  to 
hear  others  patiently,  and  without  interruption,  and  to  transact  business, 
that  may  come  before  them  in  maturer  years,  with  regularity  and  order. 

"  I  cannot  omit  to  mention  here,  the  orderly  manner  in  which  the  Quak- 
ers conduct  their  business  on  these  occasions.  When  a  subject  is  brought 
before  them,  it  is  canvassed,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  extraneous  matter,  till 
some  conclusion  results.  The  clerk  of  the  Monthly  Meeting  then  draws  up 
a  minute,  containing,  as  nearly  as  he  can  collect,  the  substance  of  this  con- 
clusion. This  minute  is  then  re.^d  aloud  to  the  auditory,  and  either  stands 
or  undergoes  an  alteration,  as  appears  by  the  silence  or  discussion  upon  it, 
to  be  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  When  fully  agreed  upon,  it  stands  ready 
to  be  recorded.  When  a  second  subject  comes  on,  it  is  canvassed,  and  a 
minute  made  of  it,  to  be  recorded  in  the  same  manner,  before  a  tliird  is  al- 
lowed to  be  introduced.  Thus  each  point  is  settled,  till  the  whole  l)usiness 
of  the  meeting  is  concluded." 

13ut,  still  further  to  exemplify  my  position,  that  the  rrprc- 


Trial  of  Frienda 


041C  in  the  courts  above.  It  is  to  this  that  they  allude.  When 
assembled  together,  they  first  sit  in  silence,  looking  to  the 
all-seeing  eye  of  their  gracious  Lord  above.  Thus  unity  is 
all-important  to  be  preserved;  it  is  on  this  union,  and  a  right 
understanding  of  this  union,  this  one  democratic  power  per- 
vading each  body,  that  we  are  to  understand,  and  by  which 
only  we  can  understand,  how  this  society  could  be  kept  to- 
gether for  the  time  they  have.  If  questions  were  carried  by 
majorities,  if  representatives  could  legislate  upon  them,  re- 
gardless of  the  rest  of  the  meeting,  if  they  did  not  profess 
to  require  the  unity  or  concurrence  of  the  whole  meeting, 
in  laws  which  are  to  operate  upon  the  society,  instead  of 
being  united  from  1671,  or  for  more  than  150  years,  from 
the  foundation  down  to  the  present  time,  they  would  have 
split  into  as  many  pieces  as  Joseph's  coat  was  torn  into. 
It  is  on  that  principle  that  the  society  is  to  be  considered, 
in  its  Monthly,  Quarterly,  and  Yearly  Meetings.  To  show 
that  I  am  right,  I  will  beg  leave  to  refer  the  court  to  some 
of  the  authorities,  showing  that  these  meetings  were  origi- 
nally Monthly,  and  in  process  of  time  Quarterly,  which  were 
composed  of  Monthly  Meetings;  and  members  who  were 
within  a  convenient  distance,  were  expected  to  attend  the  gene- 
ral meeting.  And  here  is  a  matter  of  some  kind  of  importance 
in  the  progress  of  this  suit.  The  general  meetings  had  their 
origin,  not  from  any  representatives  at  all.  The  first  and 
largest  meetings  that  took  place,  were  Meetings  for  Suffer- 
ings. Owing  to  the  peculiar  stat«e  of  concerns  in  England,  it 
was  deemed  necessary  to  have  these  meetings.  They  met, 
therefore,  frequently;  and  of  them  we  hear  frequently;  but 
previous  to  these,  Quarterly  Meetings  had  given  their  epis- 
tles, which  being  agreed  on,  these  meetings  took  place.  The 
first  meetings  therefore  that  were  had,  were  meetings  called 
together  for  general  consultation,  upon  all  the  matters  relating 
to  the  society. 

We  find  a  general  meeting  in  1659,  another  in  1671-2,  but 
not  in  any  degree  of  order  till  1677.  And  in  America,  the  first 
general  meeting,  1671-2,  in^Rhode  Island,  personally  superin- 
tended by  George  Fox,  at  Pawtuxet;  and  thence  removed  to 
Baltimore.  From  looking  into  the  origin  of  these  meetings, 
and  I  refer  to  Gough  vol.  2,  page  163,  and  Fox's  Jour- 
nal, vol.  2,  page  144,  150,  we  find  that  these  assemblies, 
took  place  originally,  without  deputies ;  or  if  they  attend- 
ed, they  were  persons  bringing  epistles  from  their  friends 
at  large,  stating  their  concerns.  And  here  we  shall  find 
that  the  real  object  of  the  assembling  of  these  people,  by 
way  of  general  meeting,  was,  the  promotion  of  greater  har- 
mony and  unity  in  the  society  all  over  the  world.  When  they 


4 


at  Stcubcnvillc,  Ohio. 


225 


first  commenced  establishing  Yearly  Meetings,  we  find  by 
their  books,  that  deputies  were  sent  up,  charged  with  con- 
cerns. The  term  deputies  was  used  indifferently  with  that 
of  representatives,  as  the  writer  happened  to  think  of  the  one 
or  the  other.  At  that  time,  and  I  undertake  to  show,  that 
down  to  this  time,  they  were  ljut  the  organs  of  communication 
between  the  two  meetings.  I  think  the  court  will  agree  with 
xne,  that  my  construction  is  the  true  one,  from  the  authority  to 
which  the  gentleman  has  referred  us.  I  take  the  first  volume 
of  Clarkson,  page  208. 

"At  length  the  day  arrives  for  the  Monthly  Meeting.  The  deputies 
make  ready  to  execute  the  duties  committed  to  their  trust.  They  repair, 
each  set  of  them,  to  their  respective  places  of  meeting.  Here  a  number 
of  Quakers,  of  different  ages,  and  both  sexes,  from  their  different  divisions, 
repair  also.  It  is  expected  that  all,  who  can  conveniently  attend,  should 
be  present  on  this  occasion. 

"  When  they  are  collected  at  the  meeting  house,  which  was  said  to  have 
been  fixed  upon  in  each  division,  a  meeting  for  worship  takes  place.  All 
persons,  both  men  and  women,  attend  together.  But  when  this  meeting  is 
over,  they  separate  into  different  apartments,  for  the  purposes  of  the  disci- 
pline; the  men  to  transact  by  themselves  the  business  of  the  men,  and  of  their 
own  district;  the  women,  to  transact  that  which  is  more  limited,  namely, 
such  as  belongs  to  their  own  sex." 

Also,  pages  2 1 0  and  211. 

"In  transacting  this  and  other  business  of  the  society,  all  members  pre- 
sent are  allowed  to  speak. 

"  The  poorest  man  in  the  meeting  house,  though  he  may  be  receiving 
charitable  conti'ibutions  at  the  time,  is  entitled  to  deliver  his  sentiments 
upon  any  point. 

"  He  may  bring  forward  new  matter.  He  may  approve  or  object  to  what 
others  have  proposed  before  him.  No  person- may  interrupt  him  while  he 
speaks. 

"  The  yo>ith  who  are  sitting  by,  are  gaining  a  knowledge  of  the  affairs 
and  discipline  of  the  society,  and  are  gradually  acquiring  sentiments  and 
habits  that  are  to  mark  their  character  in  life.  They  learn,  in  tiie  first 
place,  the  duty  of  a  benevolent  and  respectful  consideration  for  the  poor. 
In  hearing  the  different  cases  argued  and  discussed,  they  learn,  in  some 
measure,  the  rudiments  of  justice,  and  imbibe  opinions  of  tiie  necessity  of 
moral  conduct.  In  these  courts  they  learn  to  reason;  they  learn  also  to 
hear  others  patiently,  and  without  interruption,  and  to  transact  business, 
that  may  come  before  them  in  maturer  years,  with  regularity  and  order. 

"  I  cannot  omit  to  mention  here,  the  orderly  manner  in  which  tiie  Quak- 
ers conduct  their  business  on  these  occasions.  When  a  subject  is  brought 
before  them,  it  is  canvassed,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  extraneous  matter,  till 
some  conclusion  results.  The  clerk  of  the  Monthly  Meeting  then  draws  up 
a  minute,  containing,  as  nearly  as  he  can  collect,  the  substance  of  this  con- 
clusion. This  minute  is  then  re.id  aloud  to  the  auditory,  and  either  stands 
or  undergoes  an  alteration,  as  appears  by  the  silence  or  discussion  upon  it, 
to  be  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  When  fully  agreed  upon,  it  stands  ready 
to  be  recorded.  When  a  second  subject  comes  on,  it  is  canvassed,  and  r 
minute  made  of  it,  to  be  recorded  in  the  same  manner,  before  a  third  is  al- 
lowed to  be  introduced.  Thus  each  point  is  settled,  till  the  whole  business 
of  the  meeting  is  concluded." 

But,  still  further  to  exemplify  my  posilir)n.  thai  tl\c  rcprc- 


226 


Trial  of  Friends 


sentatives  are  but  the  organs  of  communication  between  the 
meetings,  and  that  the  society  is  a  pure  democracy,  I  read 
Clarkson,  vol.  1,  page  232. 

"  This  government,  however,  notwithstanding  its  power,  has,  as  1  ob- 
served before,  no  president  or  head,  either  permanent  or  temporary.  There 
is  no  first  man  through  the  whole  society,  neither  has  it  any  badge  of  office, 
or  mace,  or  constable's  staff,  or  sword. 

"  It  may  be  observed  also,  that  it  has  no  office  of  emolument,  by  which 
its  hands  can  be  strengthened;  neither  minister,  elder,  clerk,  overseer,  nor 
deputy,  being  paid :  and  yet  its  administration  is  firmly  conducted,  and  its  laws 
better  obeyed,  than  laws  by  persons  under  any  other  denomination  or  go- 
vernment. The  constant  assemblage  of  the  Quakers  at  their  places  of 
worship,  and  their  unwearied  attendances  at  the  Monthly  and  Quarterly 
Meetings,  which  they  must  often  frequent  at  a  great  distance,  to  their  own 
personal  inconvenience,  and  to  the  hinderance  of  their  worldly  concerns, 
must  be  .idmitted  in  part,  as  proofs  of  the  last  remark." 

And  page  233. — "  This  singular  obedience,  however,  to  the  laws  of  the 
society,  may  be  accounted  for  on  three  principles.  In  the  first  place,  in  no 
society  is  there  so  much  vigilance  over  the  conduct  of  its  members  as  in 
that  of  the  Quakers,  as  this  history  of  their  discipline  must  have  already 
manifested.  Tliis  vigilance,  of  course,  cannot  miss  of  its  effect.  But  a 
second  cause  is  the  following.  The  Quaker  laws  and  regulations  are  not 
made  by  any  one  person,  nor  by  any  number,  even  of  deputies.  They  are 
made  by  themselves;  that  is,  by  the  society  in  Yearly  Meeting  assembled. 
If  a  bad  law,  or  the  repeal  of  a  good  one,  be  proposed,  every  one  present, 
without  distinction,  has  a  right  to  speak  against  the  motion.  The  proposi- 
tion cannot  pass  against  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  If  persons  are  not  pre- 
sent, it  is  their  own  fault.  Thus  it  happens,  that  every  law  passed  at  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  may  be  considered,  in  some  measure,  as  the  law  of  every 
Quaker's  own  will;  and  people  are  much  more  likely  to  follow  regulations 
made  by  their  own  consent  than  those  which  are  made  against  it.  This, 
therefore,  has  unquestionably  an  operation  as  a  second  cause.  A  third  may 
be  traced  in  the  peculiar  sentiments  which  the  Quakers  hold  as  a  religious 
body.  They  believe  that  many  of  their  members,  when  they  deliver  them- 
selves publicly,  on  any  subject,  at  the  Yearly  Meeting,  are  influenced  by 
the  dictates  of  the  pure  principle,  or  by  the  spirit  of  truth. 

"  Hence  the  laws  of  the  society,  which  are  considered  to  be  the  result  of 
such  influences,  have  with  them  the  sanction  of  spiritual  authority.  They  pay 
them,  therefore,  a  greater  deference  on  this  account,  than  they  woijld  to 
laws  which  they  conceive  to  have  been  the  production  of  the  mere  imagi- 
nation or  will  of  man." 

Here  it  appears,  in  direct  terms,  as  clearly  as  language  can 
convey  the  idea,  that  the  laws  are  made  by  a//,  in  Yearly 
Meeting  assembled:  and  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  sepa- 
rate power,  devolving  upon  the  representatives,  to  be  exercised 
over  any  other  portion  of  the  community.  It  is  the  act  of 
the  whole,  because  each  individual's  will  is  incorporated  in 
the  law  passed. 

I  read  from  Gough,  pages  162-3,  2d  volume. 

"  These  were  termed  Monthly  Meetings,  because  in  the  most  general 
way,  they  were  appointed  to  be  held  once  a  month;  yet,  as  exigency,  and 
multiplicity  of  business,  in  large  cities  particularly,  pointed  out  the  neces- 
sity of  shorter  intervals,  some  are  lield  every  two  or  three  weeks,  and  some 
at  greater  intervals.  'I'hey  are  also,  in  such  places,  composed  sometimes  of 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


227 


the  members  of  one  particular  meeting  only;  but  most  generally  through 
the  counties,  consist  of  several  contiguous  meetings;  and  in  this  case,  it  ii 
the  practice  in  many  places,  for  Friends  of  each  particular  meeting,  to  hold 
a  Preparative  Meeting,  to  inquire  into  the  state  of  the  society  in  that  meet- 
ing, in  respect  to  want,  to  general  conduct,  or  to  the  sufferings  of  their 
members;  and  to  appoint  representatives,  to  report  what  may  appear  need- 
ful to  the  Monthly  Meeting.  Four  or  six  particular  meetings,  usually  com- 
pose a  Monthly,  or  general  men's  meeting." 

'•These  Monthly  Meetings  are  fewer  or  more  in  number  in  each  re- 
spective county,  as  the  number,  situation,  and  circumstances  of  the  mem- 
bers in  each  might  render  most  expedient." 

"  The  setting  up  of  Monthly  Meetings,  did  not  occasion  the  abolition  of 
Quarterly  Meetings;  but  the  former,  taking  upon  them  the  executive  part 
of  the  discipline,  which  had  before  employed  the  latter,  it  appeared  con- 
ducive to  general  benefit,  that  the  Quarterly  Meetings  should  still  continue, 
as  superintendent  and  assistant  by  advice  to  the  Monthly  Meetings.  It  was 
therefore  agreed,  that  all  the  Monthly  Meetings  in  a  county,  should,  by  their 
representatives,  and  other  members,  constitute  the  Quarterly  Meeting  for 
that  county." 

Here  is  authority  as  direclly  in  point,  as  that  which  the 
gentleman  wishes  to  rely  on. 

Now,  having  seen  what  is  the  opinion  entertained  in  England, 
it  may  be  well  to  see  what  is  the  opinion  here.  And  really,  I 
should  not  have  gone  into  this  examination,  or  produced  these 
authorities,  if  the  opposite  party  had  adhered  to  their  own 
discipline.  For  it  is  said  here,  pretty  plain,  that  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Ohio  is  composed  of  Friends  west  of  the  Allegheny 
Mountains. — {Discipline,  page  97.) 

"  The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio,  was  set  off  from  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Baltimore,  and  is  composed  of  Friends  west  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains. 
The  first  Yearly  Meeting  in  Ohio,  was  held  at  Short  Creek,  in  the  year 
1813.    It  is  now  established  at  Mount  Pleasant." 

"The  Yearly  Meeting  is  held  on  the  first  First-day  in  the  Ninth-month. 
A  public  meeting  for  worship  at  the  tenth  hour  in  the  morning,  and  another 
at  the  third  hour  in  the  afternoon.  The  meeting  for  discipline  is  opened 
at  the  tenth  hour,  on  Second-day  morning  following.  The  Yearly  Meeting 
of  ministers  and  elders  is  held  on  the  Seventh-day  of  the  week  preceding, 
and  now  concluded  to  be  opened  also  at  the  tenth  hour  in  the  morning. 
The  representatives  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  both  men  and  women, 
are  annually  to  choose  a  clerk,  and  an  assistant,  at  the  close  of  the  first  sit- 
ting of  the  meeting  for  discipline,  whose  names  are  to  be  reported  at  the 
opening  of  the  next  sitting." 

"  Representatives  having  the  care  of  the  reports  from  the  Quarterly 
Meetings,  are  to  put  them  into  tlie  hands  of  the  clerk  to  the  meeting  for 
the  preceding  year,  before  the  opening  of  the  meeting  for  discipline,  in 
order  that  time  may  be  saved  to  the  meeting." 

We  must  take  the  language  of  the  Discipline  as  it  is,  and 
as  it  reads.  We  find  in  it,  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  not 
composed  of  representatives  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  but 
is  composed  Friends  in  unity  and  in  membership;  that  they 
have  the  power,  that  they  have  the  right  to  act. 

Here,  upon  this  subject,  it  might  be  well  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  court  to  the  fact,  that  the  testimony  of  all  the  wit- 


228 


Trial  of  Friends 


iiesses,  exWept  that  of  Bates,  is,  that  they  know  of  no  power 
that  the  representatives  have,  over  any  other  member.  All 
lay  it  down  as  correct  and  true,  that  each  member  has  an  equal 
right  to  speak;  and  that  his  voice  in  speaking,  whether  to  sug- 
gest, discuss,  or  oppose  measures,  is  to  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration, equally  with  the  rest;  always  making  allowance  for 
age  over  inexperience  and  youth,  giving  to  wisdom  its  proper 
place;  not  a  preference  to  persons,  for  their  persons  are  on  an 
equality. 

A  good  deal  has  been  said,  in  order  to  further  the  idea  ad- 
vocated by  the  opposite  side,  that  it  is  a  representative  system, 
because  there  is  a  clerk,  and  he  is  appointed  at  a  particular 
time,  the  Third-day  of  the  week,  or  the  Second-day  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  continues  till  the  next  year.  Now,  a  few 
words,  I  think,  will  place  this  subject  in  its  proper  light.  The 
court  is  a^yare  that  the  clerk  has  no  business  to  perform  out 
of  the  meeting.  He  is — and  to  show  it,  I  shall  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  court  to  some  authorities — he  is  not  the  head,  but 
the  mere  servant  of  the  meeting.  The  representatives  havo 
no  power  whatsoever,  except  that  which  originates  from  the 
meeting,  and  is  given  them  expressly.  I  am  aware,  that  be- 
fore this  court,  it  will  be  contended  that  the  representatives 
have  power  to  appoint  the  clerk.  But  tlie  counsel  cannot  be 
borne  out  in  it,  for  the  Discipline,  page  98,  has  a  different 
understanding. 

"  The  representatives  from  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  both  men  and  wo- 
men, are  annually  to  choose  a  clerk,  and  an  assistant,  at  the  close  of  the 
first  sitting  of  tlie  meeting  for  discipline,  whose  names  are  to  be  reported 
at  the  opening  of  the  next  sitting." — {Discipline,  page  98.) 

The  true  construction  is,  that  they  choose  a  person  at  the 
instance  of  the  meeting,  to  be  reported  to  the  meeting — not  to 
serve  it. — This  is  not  in  the  discipline.  It  is  not  to  serve  the 
meeting,  it  is  to  choose  a  clerk  to  be  reported  to  the  meeting — 
and  they  receive,  or  object.  Such  is  the  language  and  uniform 
course  that  has  been  pursued,  according  to  the  minutes.  On 
Second-day,  that  is,  the  first  day  for  discipline,  and  I  wish  the 
court  to  understand  the  case;  by  reference  to  the  minutes,  it 
will  be  found,  that  the  uniform  course,  at  the  close  of  the  first 
sitting,  is,  that  at  the  instance  of  the  meeting,  the  representa- 
tives are  required  to  report  the  name  of  a  suitable  person  to 
serve  the  meeting  as  clerk,  for  the  ensuing  term  or  residue  of 
the  annual  sitting.  The  minutes  upon  this  subject  will  bear 
me  out. 

At  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  held  at  Mount  Pleasant,  from  the  2d  day  of 
the  Ninth-month,  to  the  9th  of  the  same,  inclusive,  1816. 

"  Third  of  the  month. — .Jonathan  Taylor,  on  behalf  of  the  representatives, 
reports,  that  they  h:ive  conferred  together,  and  agreed  to  propose  Isaac 
Wilson  to  serve  this  meeting  as  clerk,  and  Joseph  Fisher  assistant;  which 
is  united  with,  and  they  appointed  to  the  service." 


at  SteubenvUle^  Ohio. 


229 


A  similar  minute  will  be  found  in  pages,  5,  20,  29,  40,  56, 
72,  94,  105,  106,  114,  126,  139,  149,  157. 

The  court  will  see  that  the  meeting  move  the  consideration 
of  the  matter;  that  is,  at  the  second  sitting  on  the  first  day  of 
the  meeting  for  discipline,  or  Second-day  of  the  week,  they 
move,  and  the  representatives  the  next  day  make  report; — all 
by  the  motion  of  the  meeting — the  whole  body.  They  report 
a  clerk  or  person,  and  the  report  is  submitted  to  the  meeting. 
If  the  meeting  does  not  unite  in  the  name,  there  is  an  end  of 
it.  Now,  through  the  whole  transaction,  the  representatives 
have  travelled  out  of  the  original  intent  and  meaning  of  their 
office,  which  was,  to  carry  up  and  back,  communications  to 
and  from  the  different  meetings.  Why?  Because  it  is  evident 
that  it  was  done  for  the  purpose  of  expediting  business.  And 
from  being  a  practice,  it  was  at  length  entered  upon  the  book 
of  Discipline,  that  the  representatives  should  report  a  nanae. 
But  the  rule  is  still  sovereign,  that  the  society  is  a  perfect  de- 
mocracy. The  meeting,  the  whole  voice  of  the  meeting,  and 
nothing  but  the  whole  voice,  is  sufficient  for  making  a  clerk, 
or  other  officer,  for  it  cannot  be  done  by  the  representatives,  in 
their  representative  capacity. 

The  minutes  to  which  I  have  previously  referred,  will  be 
sufficient  to  show  the  uniform  tendency  of  this  society  to  do 
no  act,  except  by  the  general  concurrence  of  the  whole  meet- 
ing. But  it  is  also  urged,  that  the  representatives  have 
another  power  given  them  at  page  98  of  the  Discipline,  from 
which  they  act,  and  by  which  they  are  said  to  derive  this  con- 
trol over  the  business  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  A  declaration 
is  made,  that, 

"  Representatives  having  the  care  of  the  reports  from  the  Qiiai  terly  Meet- 
ings, are  to  put  them  into  the  hands  of  the  clerk  to  the  meeting  for  the  pre- 
ceding year,  before  the  opening  of  the  meeting  for  discipline,  in  order  that 
time  may  be  saved  to  the  meeting  by  a  pre\ioiis  entry  of  the  names  of  re- 
presentatives. No  representative  ougtit  to  withdraw  from  the  Yearly 
Meeting  before  it  ends,  without  leave  being  first  requested  and  grant- 
ed."— {Ohio  Discipline,  page  98.) 

Here,  is  a  mere  declaration  and  recommendation  of  what  is 
best  to  be  done  to  save  time.  But  it  gives  no  power  to  the 
representatives.  And  in  addition  to  this,  if  the  court  please, 
it  might  be  well  to  consider  for  a  moment,  that,  as  we  have 
seen  here,  in  this  case,  the  representatives  have  no  power, 
only  to  act  as  the  servants  or  agents  of  the  meeting:  so,  in 
another  important  point,  they  have  no  power;  that  is,  in  the 
appointment  of  all  the  various  committees,  through  which  the 
business  of  the  meeting  is  done,  (and  all  the  business  is  done 
in  and  through  committees.)  These  committees  are  never 
appointed  by  the  representatives,  or  out  of  the  representatives; 
but  they  arc  taken  indiscriminately  out  of  Friends  attend- 
ing the  Yearly  Meeting:  those  who  will  make  the  best  niem- 
29 


230 


Trial  of  Friends 


bers  are  chosen  to  serve.  The  appointments  are  never  made 
by  these  representatives,  but  by  the  meeting  at  large;  because 
the  same  unity  is  equally  important  there,  as  in  every  other 
stage. 

Then,  on  what  ground  can  the  opposite  party  contend,  that 
the  Yearly  Meeting  is  composed  of  representatives  from  the 
Quarterly  Meetings;  and  that  the  power  is  in  the  representa- 
tives? The  authorities  which  I  have  read,  with  the  discipline 
and  minutes  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  prove  the  doctrine  fal- 
lacious. 

There  remains  now  the  other  position  taken  by  the  counsel; 
and  if  this  be  no  more  tenable  than  the  one  which  we  have 
been  considering,  I  should  suppose  the  case  at  once  decided. 
His  other  proposition  is,  that  the  clerk  is  the  head  of  the 
meeting — a  kind  of  moderator;  perhaps  hierarch  or  bishop — 
I  cannot  tell  what  ideas  they  entertain  on  this  subject.  I  beg 
leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  an  authority  or  two. 
In  the  first  volume  of  Clarkson,  p.  228,  we  read, 

"The  other  remarkable  circumstance  is,  that  there  is  no  ostensible  pre- 
sident or  head  of  this  great  assembly,  nor  any  ostensible  president  or  head 
of  any  one  of  its  committees,  and  yet  the  business  of  the  society  is  conducted 
in  as  orderly  a  manner  as  it  is  possible  to  be,  among  any  body  of  men,  where 
the  number  is  so  great,  and  where  every  individual  has  a  right  to  speak." 

And  the  passage  I  before  cited  from  page  232,  is  still  more 
plain  to  the  point: — 

"  This  government,  however,  notwithstanding  its  power,  has,  as  I  ob- 
served before,  no  president  or  head,  either  permanent  or  temporary.  There 
is  no  first  man  through  the  whole  society, .neither  has  it  any  badge  of  of- 
fice, or  mace,  or  constable's  staff,  or  sword." 

And  in  Gough's  history,  vol.  2,  p.  167: — 

"Yet  they  have  a  clerk  in  each  meeting,  who  generally  undertakes  the 
office  voluntarily  at  the  desire  of  the  meeting,  whose  business  is,  to  take 
down  minutes  of  their  proceedings." 

The  language  is  very  plain.  From  these  authorities  it  ap- 
pears, that  it  is  not  a  representative  power,  but  a  democratic 
form  of  government.  It  further  appears,  contrary  to  the  ar- 
gument of  the  opposite  counsel,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
a  head,  chairman,  or  moderator. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  Mr.  Goodnow's  representative 
system,  and  his  head  also,  as  it  regards  representation,  I  will 
proceed  to  a  consideration  of  this  case. 

No  man  can  more  cordially  agree  with  another,  than  I  do, 
with  the  opposite  counsel,  as  to  the  importance  of  the  3d  sec- 
tion of  the  8th  article  of  the  constitution.  At  the  same  time 
that  I  do  this,  however,  it  becomes  my  duty  to  remind  the 
court,  that  there  is  another  important  section;  that  is,  section 
10,  which  says, 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


"  No  person  arrested  or  confined  in  jail  sliall  be  treated  with  unnecessary 
rigour,  or  be  put  to  answer  any  criminal  charge,  but  by  presentment,  in- 
dictment, or  impeachment." 

Now  the  present  prosecution  is  under  a  statu t&  making  cer- 
tain acts  criminal,  and  making  the  party  committing  them, 
subject  to  be  arrested,  tried,  and  fined,  without  the  interposi- 
tion of  any  jury.  The  judge,  in  such  cases,  is  both  judge  and 
jury.  We  conceive,  if  the  court  please,  that  the  act  of  the 
general  assembly  of  Ohio,  page  197,  was  intended  to  secure 
those  liberties,  that  is,  the  liberty  of  conscience — those  rights 
recognised  in  the  article  of  the  constitution  read  by  the  gen- 
tleman. But  we  do  not  believe,  (and  therein  consists  the  dan- 
ger)— we  do  not  believe  that  this  law  was  intended  as  a 
means  for  one  sect  to  climb  into  power  over  the  heads  of  an- 
other, and  thus  become  dominant  through  the  arm  of  the  civil 
law.  The  statute  itself  is  one,  that,  it  seems  to  me,  should  have 
been  made,  under  great  doubt  and  hesitation;  lest  while  en- 
deavouring to  preserve  the  rights  of  religious  societies,  truly 
so,  they  might  furnish  means  through  courts  of  justice,  for 
the  more  aspiring  to  trample  upon  the  rights  of  their  fellow 
creatures,  and  upon  those  great  and  imperishable  principles 
on  which  our  government  rests.  It  appears  to  me,  that  when 
a  case  of  this  kind  is  brought  before  a  judge  who  reflects  upon 
it,  he  must  consider  it  a  statute,  which,  while  it  guards  on 
one  side,  is  open  to  great  abuse  on  the  other. 

In  the  decision  that  is  to  be  made,  he  is  in  danger  of  wreck 
from  either  Scylla  or  Charybdis.  There  is  imperious  danger. 
So  much  of  this  statute  as  is  necessary  for  our  purpose,  is 
comprehended  in  three  lines: 

*'  If  any  person  or  persons  shall,  at  any  time,  interrupt  or  molest  any  re- 
ligious society,  or  any  member  thereof,  or  any  persons  when  meeting  or  met 
together,  for  the  purpose  of  worship,  or  performing  any  duties  enjoined 
on,  or  appertaining  to  them,  as  members  of  such  society,"  &c. 

Now  this  act  appears  to  have  been  passed  in  1824;  but  I 
think  it  was  passed  in  1 8 1 6.  It  was  for  the  prevention  of  low, 
vulgar  individuals,  disturbing  camp  meetings.  They  passed 
this  law — and  the  true  object  is,  not  at  all,  or  in  any  case,  to 
hear  and  determine  cases  arising  between  people  of  the  same 
denomination,  who  may  be  disputing  about  various  opinions, 
and  upon  different  subjects.  But  the  true  object  is,  to  punish 
him,  who,  without  excuse,  for  the  purpose  of  the  act,  either  wil- 
fully, or  by  his  determination,  separate  from  guilt,  interrupts, 
molests,  and  disturbs:  such  as  idle  persons  going  about  to 
camp  meetings,  selling  whiskey,  for  the  purpose  of  intoxicat- 
ing; or  causing  intrusion,  by  the  shooting  of  guns,  and  en- 
gaging in  plays,  which  might  tend  to  disturb  the  meeting; 
or  any  other  thing  of  a  similar  nature.  The  reason  is  obvious. 
Where  an  individual  acts  against  a  society,  to  disturb  its 


252 


Triut  of  Friends 


peace,  he  is  subject  to  the  punishment  that  is  attached  by  this 
statute,  to  instances  of  the  kind.  It  is  obvious,  from  the 
summary  manner  in  which  it  proceeds,  that  it  was  never  in- 
tended to  be  used  as  a  means  of  persecuting  those  who  may 
differ  in  opinion.  While  the  offence  is  warm,  and  the  parties 
are  at  hand,  complaint  may  be  made  before  a  justice  of  the 
peace,  and  no  recognisance  can  be  taken,  if  they  plead  not 
guilty.  But  even  for  a  petty  assault  and  battery,  where  the 
defendant  pleads  not  guilty,  he  shall  have  his  trial  by  his  peers. 
But  this  is  an  instance  in  which  all  these  rights  are  taken 
away.  This  act  was  passed  in  a  sudden  manner,  in  conse- 
quence of  injustice  done  to  a  particular  class  of  individuals; 
and  its  language  was  not  so  guarded  as  it  ought  to  have  been. 
But  I  hope  it  will  not  be  strained,  or  made  to  bear  beyond  the 
true  use  and  purpose  of  it. 

What  is  the  inquiry,  and  what  is  necessary  to  be  established 
under  this  complaint?  It  is  necessary  that  there  should  be 
the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio.  It  must  be  assembled — it  must 
be  engaged  in  the  performance  of  its  duties.  The  Yearly 
Meeting  thus  assembled  and  engaged,  must  be  interrupted  by 
these  defendants.  If  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio,  of  itself, 
gets  disordered — if  they  themselves  become  divided — if  they 
get  into  collision; — nay,if  they  go  so  far  as  to  commit  breaches 
of  the  law,  by  assault  and  battery,  (as  was  the  case  in  the  in- 
stance of  one  reverend  old  gentleman,  who  is  charged  with 
assaulting  one  of  his  brethren,)  if  that  be  the  case,  this  statute 
is  inoperative,  as  I  conceive. 

As  counsel  for  the  defence,  I  consider  this  an  important 
point  in  this  question.  Not  but  that  a  member  of  the  society 
may  become  obnoxious  to  the  penalties  of  this  law ; — not  that 
individuals  may  not  commit  such  acts  as  to  make  themselves 
liable  ;  but  in  such  cases  the  acts  must  appear  to  be  wilful,  and 
must  be  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  disturbance,  and  doing 
an  injury,  or  molesting  those  engaged  ;  and  not  in  the  dis- 
charge, or  under  the  colour  of  discharging  duties  as  a  mem- 
ber, however  the  member  is  greatly  mistaken  in  his  views,  and 
has  acted  erroneously;  yet  if  he  be  pursuing  an  object,  which 
he  conscientiously  believes  to  be  right,  in  that  meeting,  to 
carry  this  law  into  effect  against  him,  wouKI  be  worse  than 
placing  the  Spanish  inquisition  over  him.  It  is  a  great  thing, 
that  the  mind  and  motive  should  be  that  which  may  be  ex- 
pected of  a  member,  though,  in  itself,  ever  so  erroneous.  For 
if  the  society  is,  in  itself,  disordered,  no  one  can  say  to  an- 
other, that  he  has  offended.  There  is  no  party  that  should 
have  a  law  against  the  other.  Each  one,  before  the  court,  is 
on  a  par. 

One  of  the  members  may  disturb  the  body;  but  being  dis- 
turbed, it  cannot  complain  against  itself,  nor  have  redress 


■.i 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


2.13 


against  itself,  thougb  that  part  may  become  such,  as  to  require 
to  be  cut  off,  and  cast  from  the  body. 

In  the  examination  of  this  case,  then,  we  conceive  these  con- 
siderations important.  And  keeping  the  following;  positions 
in  view,  we  feel  a  confidence  in  resting  this  case  with  your 
honour.  On  these  positions,  or  rather  on  each  one  of  these 
positions,  the  conclusion  will  be  found  in  favour  of  the  de- 
fendants. 

First.  That  the  defendents  were  members,  and  constituent 
parts  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting. 

Second.  That  the  Yearly  Meeting  itself  became  divided  and 
disordered  on  First  and  Second-days. 

Third.  That  there  was  no  individual  act  of  disturbance,  or 
molestation,  by  the  defendants. 

Fourth.  The  disorder  was  caused  by  the  orthodoxj  or  by 
both  parties,  and  the  peculiar  state  of  Friends'  society. 

Fifth.  The  complaint  is  not  supported  by  the  facts,  as 
proved,  or  by  the  provisions  of  the  statute. 

As  to  the  first  position,  that  the  defendants  were  members, 
and  constituent  parts  of  the  meeting,  so  far  as  regards  Hilles, 
I  presume  there  can  be  no  objection.  He  was  a  representative 
from  Redstone  Quarter,  attending  there,  not  disowned,  nor 
under  dealing.  There  can  of  course  be  no  dispute  about  him. 
The  main  inquiry  is,  as  it  regards  Isaac  James.  Here,  when 
proceeding  to  this  inquiry,  I  am  well  aware  it  must  appear  to 
this  court,  that  in  judging  of  his  membership,  the  court  does 
not  ask  nor  care,  whether  the  orthodox  Monthly  Meeting,  or 
the  other,  is  the  correct  one.  It  is  sufficient  to  the  court,  that 
there  are  two  sets  of  Monthly  Meetings  throughout  the  whole 
district,  with  the  exception  of  Redstone,  which  is  undivided, 
and  occasional  cases  where  the  whole  are  Hicksites,  and  there- 
fore also  undivided;  with  some  others,  where  the  orthodox  are 
the  dominant  party.  I  take  it,  the  court  will  receive  and  re- 
cognise all  such  as  Concord,  which  Monthly  Meeting  does  now 
exist — that  if,  de  facto,  that  meeting  is  in  existence,  the  court 
will  recognise  the  members  in  this  investigation.  That,  in  a 
criminal  prosecution,  the  court  will  not  inquire  into  the  le- 
gality, or  technicality  of  the  right  of  membership  at  all.  They 
all  appear,  in  a  trial  of  this  kind,  as  members.  If  the  ques- 
tion were  on  the  deed  of  trust,  making  them  cestui  que  trusts, 
the  question  of  rightful  membership  should  be  examined. 
But  now  it  is  not  necessary;  yet,  inasmuch  as  the  coun.sel  has 
given  the  court  an  argument,  in  favour  of  disownments  in  that 
disorderly  way,  I  shall  trouble  the  court  with  a  few  observa- 
tions on  that  question. 

The  doctrines  contended  for  by  the  plaintiffs,  I  was  going 
to  say, — by  the  state,  (perhaps  more  correctly  it  is  the  plain- 
tiffs;) the  doctrine  contended  for,  is,  that  they  have  power,  in  a 


234 


Trial  (if  Friendi 


summary  way,  in  and  through  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  to  lay 
down  those  Monthly  Meetings  which  are  obnoxious  to  the 
views  and  tone  of  the  weighty  orthodox.  And  they  thus  turn 
the  whole  out  by  one  general  excommunication.  I  am  satisfied 
they  will  not  maintain  this  doctrine;  it  is  untenable;  they  can- 
not get  along  with  it.  And  the  opposite  counsel  has  made  a 
more  general  assertion.  For  it  appears,  that  a  Monthly  Meet- 
ing, without  its  consent,  has  been  laid  down  by  a  Quarterly 
Meeting,  and  attached  to  another  Monthly  Meeting,  and  the 
individuals  have  been  disowned.  He  contends  that  that  is 
sufficient  for  all  purposes,  and  that  the  proceedings  stand 
good,  the  same  as  do  the  proceedings  had  in  a  court,  and  re- 
main good  and  binding,  till  the  aggrieved  get  a  hearing  before 
a  higher  tribunal,  and  a  reversal  of  judgment.  I  conceive  the 
comparison  is  no  way  applicable.  If  this  court  should  under- 
take to  lay  down  a  justice's  court,  or  if  the  supreme  court 
should  undertake  to  abolish  this  court,  there  might  be  some 
kind  of  parallel.  Again,  it  is  said,  that  it  is  like  a  judgment 
in  force;  but  it  cannot  be  likened,  as  is  claimed,  to  any  thing 
found  in  our  books.  If  so,  it  works  directly  against  the  pro- 
secution. For  if  a  proceeding  is  of  itself  perfectly  void,  it 
follows  that  there  is  nothing  to  reverse:  nothing  of  which  the 
superior  can  take  cognizance,  or  jurisdiction.  So,  if  it  should 
appear,  in  this  investigation,  that  the  meetings  thus  laid  down, 
have  no  way  of  being  heard,  no  such  thing  as  a  regular  mode 
provided,  which  can  give  them  a  hearing,  or  any  way  by 
which  they  can  come  up  to  the  superior,  then  the  gentlemen 
have  a  case,  where  they  have  legislated  without  authority;  and 
the  whole  proceeding  is  void. 

We  conceive  that  the  proceeding  is  void  from  the  Discipline 
itself. 

"  No  Quarterly  Meeting  should  be  set  up,  or  laid  down,  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Yearly  Meeting;  no  Monthly  Meeting,  without  tiie  consent  of 
the  Quarterly  Meeting;  nor  any  Preparative  or  other  meeting  for  business 
or  worship,  until  application  to  the  Monthly  Meeting  be  first  made." — 
(  Ohio  Discipline,  p.  29.) 

Here  it  appears  necessary  that  application  be  made  from 
the  Monthly  Meeting,  and  that  the  Quarterly  may  assent  to,  or 
reject  the  application.  If  the  cotivenience  of  the  members  of 
the  Monthly  Meeting,  requires  that  it  should  be  laid  down, 
and  the  members  attached  to  another  meeting,  at  a  different 
place,  they  are  the  best  judges  of  the  fact.  And  where  the 
Monthly  Meeting  makes  application  for  such  purpose,  the 
Quarterly  has  the  right  to  withhold,  or  give  its  assent.  But 
this  never  can  give  them  power,  to  do  what  they  have  at- 
tempted in  the  case  under  consideration.  It  never  was  intend- 
ed. It  cannot  be.  It  has  nevertheless  been  claimed,  that  at 
page  28,  there  may  be  some  right  of  the  kind  conferred. 


at  Steiibenville,  Ohio. 


235 


"  The  connexion  anil  subordination  of  our  meetings  for  discipline,  are 
thus:  Preparative  Meetings  are  accountable  to  the  Monthly;  Monthly  to  the 
Quarterly;  and  Quarterly  to  the  Yearly  Meetings :  so  that  if  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing be  at  any  time  dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  of  any  inferior  meet- 
ings; or  a  Quarterly  Meeting,  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its  Monthly 
Meetings;  or  a  Monthly  Meeting,  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its  Pre- 
parative Meetings;  such  meetings  ought  with  readiness  and  meekness  to 
render  accounts  thereof,  when  required;  and  correct,  or  expunge  any  of 
the  minutes,  according  to  the  direction  of  the  superior  meeting." — (_Okio 
Discipline,  p.  28. ) 

This  is  a  provision  for  the  acting  and  doing  of  these  sepa- 
rate inferior  meetings.  Their  reports  should  be  sent  up,  from 
Monthly  to  Quarterly,  from  Quarterly  to  Yearly  Meetings. 
And  whatever  is  repugnant  to  the  discipline  of  the  society,  or 
that  which  is  not  decorous  before  the  eyes  of  the  world,  or 
which  is  liable  to  any  other  similar  objection,  they  may  direct 
to  be  expunged  from  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting;  but 
they  cannot  lay  the  meeting  down,  because  there  would  be  no 
way  for  it  to  get  up.  It  could  not  appeal,  because  it  could  not 
be  a  party  present.  There  is  no  way  of  appeal.  Then  the 
clause  of  Discipline  in  question,  must  apply  to  the  different 
acts  and  doings  of  the  inferior  meetings,  in  the  transaction  of 
their  business;  it  cannot  relate  to  an  act  that  is  of  such  sove- 
reign power  as  the  annihilation  of  Monthly  Meetings;  and 
for  this  reason — they  could  not  appeal.  It  is  clear,  for  the 
language  is  express  and  direct,  that  no  Monthly  Meeting  shall 
be  laid  down  without  its  own  assent.  And  the  laying  down 
must  be  on  its  own  request.  Shall  the  power  then  be  gathered 
from  mere  construction,  when  the  language  on  the  other  side 
is  express  and  direct?  Had  such  authority  been  intended, 
would  it  not  have  been  expressly  provided  by  the  Yearly 
Meeting,  that  Quarterly  Meetings  should  have  power  to  put 
down  and  set  up  Monthly  Meetings?  The  express  declara- 
tion to  the  reverse,  is  proof  positive  of  the  true  understanding 
that  the  framers  of  the  Discipline  had. 

Another  consideration  is,  that  the  book  of  Discipline  pro- 
vides for  each  individual;  for  he  is  accountable  to  his  own 
Monthly  Meeting,  and  if  he  is  aggrieved,  he  has  a  right  of 
appeal.  He  may  appeal  to  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  and  from 
the  Quarterly  to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  We  see  that  great  care 
has  been  taken,  that  no  injustice  shall  be  done  to  a  single  in- 
dividual, from  the  lowest,  and  most  inferior  meeting  in  the 
society,  up  to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  If  that  assumption  of 
power  could  have  been  contemplated,  would  there  not  have 
been  some  provision  for  these  Monthly  Meetings,  by  which 
they  could  have  redress?  I  do  not  know  that  a  lawyer  would 
express  himself  thus ;  for  how  could  a  Monthly  Meeting  ap- 
peal, when  out  of  existence?  How  appeal,  when  the  body  of 
its  members  is  gone?    They  are  appertaining  and  belong- 


236  Trial  of  Friends 

ing  to  another  meeting.  There  is  no  provision  in  the  book  of 
Discipline  by  which  an  appeal  could  be  made. 

There  is  another  reason  why  the  construction  cannot  be  as 
suggested  by  the  counsel.  There  is  a  list  of  annual  queries, 
addressed  from  the  Yearly  Meeting  to  the  different  Quarterly 
and  Monthly  Meetings.  Here  Mr.  Hubbard  referred  to  the 
Discipline,  from  page  76  to  79. 

Now,  I  would  agree,  if  this  Discipline  were  like  the  London 
Discipline,  in  which  power  is  given  to  set  up  and  lay  down, 
there  would  be  some  way  to  get  hold  of  the  subject,  for  there, 
the  power  to  lay  down,  is  founded  upon  an  express  stipulation 
in  their  Discipline.  There  is  an  express  stipulation  to  that 
effect.  They  found  an  evil — those  who  wished  to  rule  and  to 
arrogate  power,  found  others  not  agreeing  with  their  great 
and  sovereign  will.  And  there  was  a  provision  made, by  which 
the  Quarterly  could  laydown:  and  the  right  was  assigned  them 
to  put  down  or  set  up.  Hence  follow  the  queries,  requiring 
the  Quarters  to  state  the  number  set  up  and  put  down.  And 
it  may  be  a  matter  of  useful  history,  to  refer  to  the  case  which 
led  to  the  alteration  in  that  respect.  But  before  I  leave  this 
subject,  I  will  just  state,  that  so  important  a  matter,  not  hav- 
ing been  stated  in  the  Ohio  queries,  it  must  be  evident,  from 
that  consideration,  that  the  framers  of  this  Discipline  never 
dreamed  of  such  a  thing.  And  I  infer,  that  it  would  be  an  out- 
rageous provision,  and  that  it  would  g-o  counter  to  a  funda- 
mental principle,  in  this  government,  by  seeking  to  destroy  a 
united  body  of  people,  to  gratify  some  arbitrary  views.  As  it 
regards  the  individual  rights  of  members  of  the  society,  from 
the  highest  to  the  lowest,  as  well  as  the  right  of  usurpation 
by  these  people,  of  the  power  to  lay  down  a  Monthly  Meeting, 
I  will  refer  the  court  to  an  extract  from  an  old  book,  published 
1761: 

"  The  24th,  we  visited  those  under  our  profession  at  Coterhill-head, 
called  a  Monthly  Meeting;  but,  alas!  upon  inquiry,  we  found  but  very 
little  done  of  the  business  proper  to  a  Monthly  Meeting;  neither  was  it  held 
in  due  course,  but  rather  occasionally,  for  some  particular  purposes;  and 
when  the  state  of  the  members  appeared,  we  did  not  marvel  thereat,  seeing 
most  of  them  were  unfaithful  in  regard  to  tliat  important  testimony  against 
tithes,  and  other  anti-christian  demands  of  that  nature:  other  great  disor- 
ders also  had  crept  in,  nor  can  any  other  be  reasonably  expected,  where 
persons  are  so  void  of  a  right  understanding  as  to  sacrifice  that  noble  testi- 
mony; they  have  not  strength  to  maintain  other  brancliis  in  a  consistent 
efficacious  manner,  so  that  where  this  defection  hath  prevailed,  we  have 
observed  the  most  essential  part  in  religion  (amongst  us  as  a  people)  has 
fallen  with  it:  meetings  for  worship  and  discipline  are  neglected,  and  if 
sometiines  held  by  sucii,  they  are  to  little  good  purpose;  plainness  and 
self-denial  are  dejiarted  fi  oni:  this  hard,  dark,  litiie-paying  spirit  is  so  blind 
as  to  see  but  little  in  any  brand)  of  our  testimony,  wherein  there  is  a  cross 
to  the  carnal  mind.  Upon  solid  consideration,  we  did  not  think,  that  using 
endeavours  to  regulate  that  meeting,  in  its  situation  at  that  time,  would 


at  Stevbeitville,  Ohio. 


answer  any  t,''ood  purpose;  but  tlie  great  thing  pointed  out  to  us  in  the 
light  of  truth,  was,  its  being  dissolved,  and  tliat  tlie  members  thereof  might 
be  joined  to  Hertford  Monthly  Meeting,  which  iiad  been  endeavoured  for 
several  years,  both  by  their  Quarterly  Meeting,  and  also  several  committees 
of  the  Vearly  Meeting,  which  had  not,  till  now,  proved  successful,  as  the 
consent  of  most  of  the  members  could  not  be  obtained:  but  this  meeting, 
through  divine  favour,  was  wonderfully  overshadowed  with  a  solemn  weight 
of  heavenly  power,  wiiich  awed  and  tendered  their  spirits,  and  at  the  same 
time  mercifully  enabled  us  clearly  to  demonstrate,  that  they  contended 
only  for  the  name  of  a  Monthly  Meeting;  seeing  the  service  of  such  a  meet- 
ing was  not  answered,  scarcely  in  any  instance,  they  at  length  geneially 
yielded,  and  a  minute  was  made  to  propose  a  junction  with  Hertford,  which 
is  since  effected,  to  the  great  ease  and  satisfaction  of  Friends." — Juhn  {Grif- 
fith's Journal,  p.  313,  314,  315.) 

It  seems  they  tried  for  three  years,  but  they  could  not  doit, 
till  they  persuaded  the  Monthly  Meeting  to  make  a  minute  ; 
and  that  is  the  true  old  constitutional  form,  which  shows,  con- 
clusively, that  the  Monthly  Meetings  should  agree,  and  make 
the  application.  This  book  ol'  Discipline,  then,  has  never  in- 
terfered with  these  old  constitutional  rights. — In  page  29, 
they  have  recognised  them;  for  it  is  only  on  tlie  application 
of  the  Monthly  Meeting,  that  it  shall  be  laid  down. 

Another  consideration  shows  the  absurdity  of  the  position. 
A  Monthly  Meeting  exists,  first,  by  the  general  unity  of  those 
who  compose  it|  secondly,  tliey  have  a  place  of  worship,  pro- 
perty, grave-yard,  Sec,  and  when  Friends  are  entered,  or  cen- 
tred in  such  a  place,  purchased  by  their  own  property  and 
money,  it  may  be  entirely  separate  and  distinct  from  the  Quar- 
terly and  Yearly  Meetings.  Then  it  is  proper  to  be  consider- 
ed, if  such  tremendous  power  existed,  as  to  lay  down  and 
attach  it  to  another,  it  lessens  their  interests  there,  by  putting 
others  in  common  with  them,  and  making  other  cestui  que 
trusts  equal  with  themselves.  Consider  for  one  moment,  if 
they  had  the  power  to  lay  down  Concord  and  attach  it  to  Short 
Creek,  if  Short  Creek  should  happen  to  be  as  offensive  as 
Concord,  they  would  go  still  further;  if  three  miles  would  not 
answer,  they  might  send  them  a  hundred  miles;  the  power 
would  have  no  limit.  And  v,  e  sec,  that  great  and  dangerous 
evils  would  be  attendant  on  the  exercise  of  it.  We  sec  from 
the  whole  constitution  of  this  society,  that  the  INIonlhly 
Meeting  must  be  agreed.  At  Concord,  so  far  from  their 
being  agreed,  four-fifths  were  against  it.  There  was  no  unity 
in  the  measure.  It  w  as  not  carried,  nor  attempted  to  be  car- 
ried in  that  meeting.  There  is  still  one  other  consideration, 
independent  of  those  which  I  have  stated.  A  case  may  arise, 
for  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  it,  of  a  Quarterly  Meeting's 
being  composed  of  two  Monthly  Meetings.  Redstone  was,  for 
a  long  time,  composed  of  but  two  Monthly  Meetings;  now  if 
the  Quarterly  had  a  right  to  lay  down,  they  would  make  a 
great  sacrifice,  for  by  laying  down  one  they  would  lay  down 
30 


t 


358  Trial  of  Friends 

tlie  two,  Monthly  and  Quarterly  bolli.  This,  in  connexion 
■with  the  other  consideration,  must  place  the  question  beyond 
doubt.  The  proceeding  in  reference  to  Isaac  James,  then, 
was  altogether  void  ;  and  his  rii^ht  of  meml)ership  has  remain- 
ed as  entire,  and  a?  good  as  ever.  And  he  is  as  much  in  unity 
with  his  meeting,  as  if  they  had  not  taken  one  single  step  to- 
wards the  matter. 

We  now  proceed — having  established  the  position,  that  the 
meeting  at  Concord  has  continued  to  exist,  since  these  trou- 
bles commenced — that  that  Monthly  Meeting  could  not  be  laid 
down,  without  its  consent — that  the  same  meeting,  de facto, 
has  e>ver  since  continued; — we  now  proceed  to  see  what  was 
the  division  and  disturbance  at  the  Yearly  Meeting — to  see  if 
that  meeting  was  not  itself  disordered.  I  think  I  shall  be 
Ijorne  out  in  the  assertion,  that  the  difficulties  of  that  day  had 
their  origin  at  a  distance;  that  the  situation  of  the  society 
was  a  remarkable  one;  that  to  a  large  extent,  they  were,  in  the 
place  of  unity,  getting  to  be  in  disunity ;  and  that  estrange- 
ment had  got  into  the  society.  It  is  no  matter  who  was  right, 
or  who  was  wrong,  in  the  consideration  of  this  court ;  but  it  is 
evident  that  something  had  got  so  far  spread  over  the  minds 
of  the  people,  and  over  the  whole  society,  that  it  was  ready 
and  ripe,  of  itself,  to  divide  and  crumble  to  pieces.  An  old 
author,  I  think  DoBglas  is  the  name,  in  treating  of  the  society 
of  Friends,  has  said,  that  he  had  no  doubt  they  would  become 
a  very  large  and  numerous  body  of  people.  He  was  speaking 
of  the  doctrines  of  Friends  in  a  most  creditable.manner.  One 
reason  which  he  assigned,  was,  that  they  had  no  creed,  or 
standard,  laid  down,  from  which  a  deviation  could  be  charged. 
He  states  that  their  system  is  purely  democratic;  that  no  law 
could  pass  while  any  of  the  members  were  opposed  to  it.  He 
thought  it  might  endure  to  the  latest  posterity,  and  become  a 
very  large  society. 

It  is  supposed  by  some,  and  probably  not  without  cause, 
that  one  great  reason  of  this  split,  is,  an  attempt  to  force  the 
opinions  that  some  entertain  upon  others;  and  a  determination 
that  they  shall  adopt  them.  One  thing  is  certainly  evident; 
that  it  has  been  accelerated  by  the  high-handed  measures  of 
putting  down  Monthly  Meetings,  and  of  keeping  the  commit- 
tee for  sufferings  in  almost  constant  sitting,  s£nding  its  mem- 
bers from  meeting  to  meeting,  to  further  the  views  of  a  domi- 
nant party.  This  has  been  no  uncommon  occurrence.  It  is, 
furthermore,  in  evidence,  that  a  certain  publication  from  In- 
diana, called  "  A  Testimony  and  Epistle  of  Advice,"  has  caused 
a  great  deal  of  the  distraction.  As  I  understand  the  evidence, 
the  party  called  Hicksites  never  wished  to  control  the  opinions 
of  others,  or  that  others  should  adopt  their  opinions;  but 
they  wished  to  enjoy  their  own  opinions.    As  the  descendants 


al  Sleulieiivillt,  Ohio. 


239 


of  Fox,  they  wished  to  entertain  their  own  opkiioni,  and  let 
thcni  be  adjudged  between  theniBelves  and  their  Maker. 

This  epistle,  containing  a  written  direction  in  the  iritro- 
ductory  part,  from  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  of  Ohio,  insist- 
ing that  the  Quarterly  and  Monthly  Meetings  shSuld  adopt  it, 
was  supposed  to  be  in  contravention  to  the  Discipline,  which 
says,  the  committee  for  sufferings  shall  not  adopt  any  article 
of  faith  or  discipline,  not  determined  on  by  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing. This  document  was  sent  out  too,  at  a  time,  just  after 
this  meeting  had  expressed  ftnity  with  those  whom  it  seeks  to 
condemn.  I  mean  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  1817,  in  whrch  all 
the  members  of  this  society,  and  those  who  met  at  the  Yearly 
Meeting  in  Mount  Pleasant,  were  in  unity  with  the  sam£  man, 
and  set  of  men,  whom,  by  the  Indiana  epistle,  it  was  sought 
to  condemn,  I  take  it,  and  those  who  will  examine,  will  find 
it  so,  when  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio  is  in  unity  with  an- 
other Yearly  Meeting,  it  is  in  unity  with  all  the  regular  minis- 
ters and  elders  of  that  meeting.  Now,  we  see,  that  previous 
to  this  affair,  the  same  doctrines  preached  in  this  house,  and 
preached  elstwhere,  by  this  same  Elias  Hicks,  were  adopted 
and  received,  all  in  perfect  unity. 

A  proceeding  had  taken  place  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in 
which  a  portion  of  the  members  had  become  opposed  to  the 
great  body  of  the  meeting,  and  had  seceded,  and  gone  off  to  a 
jnasonic  hall,  or  a  medical  hall.  A  small  minority  had  gone 
off}  the  rest  remained  upon  the  ancient  principles  of  the  so- 
ciety; ^nd  among  them  was  Elias  Hicks.  In  the  spring  of 
this  last  year,  without  waiting  for  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  to 
assemble,  and  to  consider  the  subject,  according  to  the  old 
rule,  certain  individuals,  who  had  become  parties  to  a  reli- 
gious warfare,  had  determined,  it  appears  from  the  evidence, 
to  espouse  the  cause  of  those  who  had  seceded,  and  unite  with 
them  as  many  as  they  could,  to  carry  the  day  here.  Such,  I 
believe,  is  the  history  of  this  matter  ;  and  hence  it  is  that  we  see 
such  great  assiduity  to  keep  deputies  from  the  committee  for 
sufferings,  constantly  travelling.  For,  go  where  you  will — to 
New  Garden,  Short  Creek.  Salem — the  prosecutor,  Benjamin 
W.  Ladd,  is  there,  ready  to  urge  and  push  down;  and  if 
he  could  not  do  that,  he  would  resort  to  the  law,  and  sec  what 
he  could  do  then.  This  is  what  appears  to  mc  to  be  the  true 
state  of  the  case. 

I  his  Indiana  epistle  has  been  considered,  by  a  great  portion 
of  the  society,  and  I  speak  on  testimony,  when  I  say,  that  a 
majority  of  tlic  Yearly  Meeting — I  do  not  speak  of  those  who 
divided  at  the  meeting  house  at  Mount  Pleasant— I  speak  on 
testimony,  when  I  say,  tluu  a  majority  have  considered  it  a 
breach  of  discipline,  and  a  matter  of  conscience,  so  much 
so,  thai  they  '  ould  not  recognise  it.    Consequently,  where 


240 


Trial  of  Frie.nds 


they  could  not  agree,  without  waiting;  for  the  sense  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  without  any  time  being  allowed — immedi- 
ately follows  the  destruction  of  Monthly  Meetings,  and  the 
turning  out  of  every  body  who  could  not  bow  to  this  unau- 
thorized dictation  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings. 

I  take  it  upon  me  to  say,  that  the  observation  of  my  friend 
Goodnow,  on  the  opposite  side,  was  a  very  strange  one,  and 
one  which  struck  me  at  the  time,  as  entirely  out  of  the  case, 
and  not  necessary  to  be  brought  in  here,  for  the  purpose  of 
producing  an  effect.  "  I  can  no  more  understand  the  doc- 
trines of  Elias  Hicks,  than  I  can  those  of  deism."  Now,  I  sup- 
posed he  had  never  examined  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks, 
and  I  feel  convinced  that  he  never  has.  Indeed,  he  acknow- 
ledges that  he  has  not. 

Now,  concerning  the  matter  that  has  been  read  by  him,  from 
the  "Testimony  and  Epistle  of  Advice,"  in  a  work  printed 
by  Elisha  Bates,  in  relation  to  a  periodical  work  called  the 
Berean,  I  must  say,  that  although  I  have  heard  a  great  deal 
about  garbled  doctrines,  spurious  doctrines,  Sec,  yet,  I  never 
saw  so  outrageous  and  garbled  a  statement  as  is  there  exhibit- 
ed. In  the  one  short  extract  that  we  have  heard,  there  is  a 
quotation  of  parts  of  a  sentence,  and  parts  of  expressions, 
taken  from  three  different  pages  of  the  book,  far  separate,  not 
showing  the  context,  connexion,  or  dependence.  I  was  un- 
dertaking to  show  that  the  same  Indiana  epistle,  being  spu- 
rious, was  one  cause  why  it  would  not  be  good  authority  here; 
and  another  cause  is,  that  it  quotes  third-handed  from  the 
Berean.  Tiie  sentence  thus  garbled,  is  such  as  no  Christian 
could  take  exception  to.  I  have  read  the  article  through 
carefully,  and  the  Berean,  from  which  it  is  quoted,  will  not 
sustain  any  such  position.  When  a  person  undertakes  to  quote 
an  author,  and  puts  words  into  his  mouth,  a?  conveying  his 
meaning,  for  the  purpose  of  condemning  him,  he  is  without 
excuse.  And  this  is  the  way  they  have  done  towards  Elias 
Hicks,  and  the  v/hole  society.  I  wish  the  court  would  examine 
this  matter;  for  a  more  garbled  piece  of  business  I  never  saw. 

This  piece  of  testimony  to  which  I  have  alluded,  was  the 
cause  of  doors  being  barred,  and  of  meetings  being  laid  down. 
They  could  not  receive  it.  They  said  it  was  untruth.  That 
■was  the  opinion  entertained  by  Concord  Meeting.  The  con- 
sequence was,  the  laying  down  of  that  Monthly  Meeting,  and 
the  barring  of  doors.  Was  not  the  objection  a  good  one,  and 
such  as  all  members  ought  to  make,  when  they  were  in  unity 
with  the  same  author,  who,  by  a  garbled  quotation  of  his  sen- 
timents, was  sought  to  be  condemned?  Now  the  Discipline 
has  stated  distinctly — and  it  is  a  very  good  thing  as  a  precau- 
tionary measure — that  this  Meeting  for  Sufferings  shall  adopt 
no  rule  of  discipline,  or  article  of  faith,  unless  first  sanctioned 


at  Slcuhevville,  Ohio. 


241 


by  the  Yearly  Meeting.  But  the  act  which  they  undertook 
was  one  of  supererogation,  and  most  likely  arose  from  a  spirit 
of  ambition.  I  undertake  to  say,  that  there  has  been  ambi- 
tion in  this,  as  well  as  in  politics.  When  the  court  comes  to 
take  this,  and  look  at  it,  particularly  at  the  address  at  the  fore- 
part of  it,  signed  by  Jordan  Harrison,  clerk,  his  honour  will 
find  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  book  of  Discipline,  and  in  con- 
travention to  the  provision  that  has  been  read. 

I  know,  and  perhaps  I  ought  to  advert  to  it,  that  the  gentle- 
man has  taken  up  the  book  of  Discipline,  where  it  is  said,  no 
individual  shall  blaspheme,  or  deny  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour. 
To  this,  let  jne  say  to  the  court,  and  to  the  world,  that  I  have 
been  well  acquainted  with  that  portion  of  the  society  of  Friends, 
to  which  these  defendants  belong,  and  never  did  I,  in  a  single 
instance,  hear  one  of  them  say  aught  against  it,  or  advance  any 
doctrine  repugnant  to  it.  Nor,  in  the  reading  that  I  have 
past,  in  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks,  did  I  ever  see  a  doc- 
trine contrary  to  it.  This  much  I  have  said  in  reference  to 
the  use  that  has  been  made  of  this  provision  in  the  book  of 
Discipline.  I  have  heard  that  old  gentleman  preach;  and  in 
his  discourse,  heard  him  acknowledge  the  divinity  of  our 
blessed  Saviour,  and  encourage  it  on  his  hearers,  as  much  as 
I  ever  heard  any  one,  in  all  my  intercourse  with  Christian 
professors. — Wliy  put  this  at  us.''  Because  the  society  is  di- 
vided, and  one  division  is  loaded  with  opprobrious  epithets, 
this  is  thrown  in  here,  to  add  to  the  unpleasant  feelings  al- 
ready existing. 

This  Indiana  epistle,  I  say,  has  created  great  disturbance, 
and  I  think  it  is  not  warranted  by  the  Discipline;  besides,  it 
has  been  shown  to  be  untrue.  Yet  this  document  has  been 
urged  against  those  who  were  born  members,  and  have  con- 
tinued to  sustain  irreproachable  characters  among  their  bre- 
thren. They  have  been  turned  out,  because  they  had  read  the 
sermons  of  Elias  Hicks,  with  whom  they  and  the  whole  Yearly 
Meeting  were,  but  the  year  before,  in  strict  unity,  as  well  as 
at  the  time  of  such  reading.  But,  having  read  this  book,  and 
not  seeing  the  evil  which  it  contained,  they  have  been  turned 
out,  because  they  had  not  the  ability  to  discover  as  much  as 
Benjamin  W.  Ladd  could. 

Then,  if  the  court  please,  the  state  of  the  society  had 
become  such,  that  a  great  deal  of  unpleasant  feeling  and 
estrangement  had  spread  itself  over  the  whole  extent  of  the 
society,  and  over  the  United  States,  with  the  exception  of  Bal- 
timore Yearly  Meeting,  the  whole  of  which  is  yet  in  unilv  with 
the  old  New  York  Yearly  Meeting,  and  was  at  that  time  in  unity 
with  those  who  afterwards  went  off  from  the  old  Yearly  Meet- 
ing house.  This  estrangement  had  extended  itself  so  gene- 
rally, that  it  may  account  for  the  occurrences  in  Ohio,  without 


'I'riul  of'  F 1  tends 


supposing  a  conspiracy,  which  the  gcnllcnien  wish  to  make 
out.  The  dealing  unfairly  and  improperly  with  these  persons, 
may  have  been  the  reason  why  their  feelings  were  in  that 
state,  that  they  were  not  proper  nor  fit  subjects  to  meet  to- 
gether, as  members  are  wont  to  do,  in  peace  and  harmony.  I 
take  it,  that  on  this  ground,  the  intimations  of  conspiracy  are 
entirely  unsupported  by  proof.  The  whole  thing  is  explained. 
One  party  was  resorting  to  these  arbitrary  measures,  while  the 
other  resorted  to  none.  The  party  named  Hicksites,  whatever 
opinions  they  might  have  entertained,  have  exhibited  a  life  and 
conduct,  worthy  of  the  descendants  of  Penn.  They  have  not 
barred  their  doors,  nor  undertaken  to  exclude  men,  because 
they  had  not  knowledge  enough  to  understand  where  the  evil 
was,  in  a  book  which  they  had  read.  It  is  not  the  mode  re- 
sorted to,  or  ever  likely  to  t)e  pursued  by  them,  to  carry  one 
single  point,  for  all  are  by  their  life  and  conduct  directly  op- 
posed to  it.  But  in  this  respect,  the  distinction  between  them 
and  the  other  party  is  such,  as  may  account  for  the  division  in 
the  body. 

Then  I  proceed  very  briefly  to  the  consideration  of  the  third 
position,  as  it  regards  the  individuals  themselves.  There  is 
no  individual  act  connected  with  them,  as  disconnected  with 
the  others,  iti  the  meeting.  When  the  orthodox  were  pushing 
one  way,  and  these  the  other,  and  also  those  who  had  no  busi- 
ness in  the  meeting,  and  who  went  off  with  the  orthodox — 
such  as  Jacksonmen  and  orthodox  people  not  members,  is  it 
not  time  to  look  lor  a  cause  in  the  other  party? 

But,  taking  the  incipient  stages  of  it,  and  through  the  whole 
transaction,  we  cannot  discover  any  single  act,  proved  against 
either  Hilles  or  James.  From  the  testimony  of  those  who  ap- 
pear against  Hilles,  B.  W.  Ladd  and  Jonathan  Taylor,  even 
from  the  testimony  of  those  nearest  to  him,  it  appears  that  it 
was  against  his  will,  or  submissively,  that  he  walked  up  the 
alley;  and  whenever  he  found  any  resistance,  he  stopped.  He 
slopped  at  the  stove,  and  wrote  an  opening  minute;  for  the 
people  had  got  into  such  a  state,  that  no  man  could  keep  his 
place  ;  they  were  shoved  here  and  there.  When  Hilles  was 
found,  he  was  quietly  seated  on  a  bench,  in  the  back  part  of  the 
house.  He  is  a  man  of  unblemished  character,  so  far  as  his 
Christian  character  and  connexion  with  the  world  may  be  here 
considered.  In  a  criminal  case,  suspicion  is  not  to  take  the 
place  of  proof.  He  is  without  reproach.  He  was  perfectly 
quiet  and  inoffensive  in  proceeding  as  he  should  do,  in  dis- 
charge of  his  duty,  as  clerk  of  the  meeting,  when  the  drawer 
was  brought  to  him. 

So,  in  the  rase  of  Isaac  James;  lliere  was  no  act  proved  upon 
liini,  for  disturbing  the  meeting.  He  was  one  who  was  there 
with  the  rest,  and  one  who,  from  the  tcsliraony,  differed  from 


al  Steubetivilli'.,  0/iio. 


243 


the  orthodox;  but  as  it  regaHcls  any  movement  or  procedure 
as  touching  this  complaint,  he  is  not  a  party  to  it.  It  is  in 
evidence  that  he  vvoi  ked  his  way  along,  and  was  found  getting 
over  the  railing;  but  this  was  at  a  time  when  the  whole  assem- 
bly were  in  perfect  confusion.  He  attacks  nobody,  he  uses 
violence  to  nobody;  but  even  Benj.  W.  Ladd  seizes  hold  and 
gives  him  a  push.  Now  in  the  whole  transaction  there  was 
not  so  much  of  a  departure  from  what  is  right  in  James,  as  in 
B.  W.  Ladd.  I  therefore  put  all  this  out  of  the  question;  for 
this  happened  during  the  tumult.  The  disturbance  of  mak- 
ing a  new  clerk  was  over  before  that;  and  as  the  disturbance 
was  over,  before  James  was  seen  climbing  over  the  bench  rail- 
ing, I  say  he  was  not  a  party. 

If  French  was  a  party,  in  a  conspiracy  connected  with 
Hilles,  and  that  was  to  disturb  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  or 
any  act  connected  with  them  as  members  of  the  society,  it 
would  be  a  difl'erent  case.  But  not  only  is  such  inference  un- 
true; but  is  disproved  by  French  himself.  He  says,  there  was 
no  understanding  or  connexion  between  h'lm  and  the  rest — 
neither  Peaslee  nor  any  other  distinguished  person  on  their 
side.  There  is  no  individual  act  touching  him.  We  must 
then  look  elsewhere,  and  in  so  doing,  we  must  refer  to  the 
proceeding  as  it  took  place,  by  which  we  shall  find,  that  others 
were  the  ones  acting  in  person,  who  were  executing  such 
duties  as  they  conscientiously  thought  devolved  on  them,  as 
members  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.  Then,  in  addition  to  the 
state  of  the  times,  was  the  feeling  of  which  individuals  were 
possessed;  feeling  more  or  less  of  unfriendliness  towards 
others  who  came  together  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  There, 
Peaslee,  an  approved  minister  of  the  gospel,  one  who  has  en- 
joyed, and  still  enjoys  a  very  high  standing  in  the  Christian 
world,  was,  on  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  violently  opposed  by 
Taylor.  Taylor  had  been  one  of  the  two  hundred,  who  seceded 
from  the  society  in  New  York.  He  opposes  Peaslee,  and  tells 
him  to  sit  down  ;  and,  at  one  time,  these  ministers  and  elders 
had  so  little  unity,  that  Elisha  Bates  and  others  broke  up  the 
meeting  and  went  off. 

Now  this  is  a  matter  of  serious  import.  Elisha  Bates  testi- 
fies, that  if  Amos  Peaslee  had  been  a  regular  minister,  and  no 
disownnient,  or  cause  of  disownment  existed,  and  had  been 
treated  in  the  way  he  was,  in  any  other  state  of  times  than 
these,  the  act  would  have  been  very  disorderly,  and  Taylor 
would  have  probably  been  displaced.  This  was  while  inquir- 
ing of  him,  upon  his  cross-examination,  as  t®  the  conduct  of 
Peaslee.  A  great  portion  of  the  assembly,  at  least  six  hun- 
dred of  them,  thought  it  unwarranted,  and  altogether  disor- 
derly.   The  book  of  Disripline  says,  page  5:1, 


Trial  of  Friemis 


"As  the  occasion  of  our  religious  meetings  is  solemn,  a  care  should  be 
maintained  to  guard  against  uny  thing  that  would  tend  to  disorder  or  con- 
fusion therein;  when  any  think  they  liave  aught  against  what  is  publicly 
delivered,  they  should  speak  to  the  part)'  privately;  and  if  anv  shall  oppose 
a  minister,  in  his  or  her  preaching,  or  exhortation,  or  keep  on  the  hat,  or 
show  any  remarkable  dislike  to  such,  when  engaged  in  prayer,  let  them  be 
speedily  admonished." 

What  was  it  that  should  induce  one  side  to  a  deviation  from 
this  advice,  for  difference  of  opinion,  the  meetinfj  not  being 
otherwise  divided?  What  could  induce  one  side  not  to  ex- 
tend the  same  charity,  that  was  extended  towards  them  by  the 
other  parly?  They  did  not  undertake  this  course,  to  put 
down  persons  who  did  not  think  with  themselves. 

Then  this  disturbance  commenced  on  First-day.  No  indi- 
vidual that  is  charged  here,  was  a  party  to  that  disturbance; 
they  merely  sat  there  in  silence,  no  doubt  feeling  aggrieved, 
that  such  an  attack  was  made  on  so  worthy  a  man  as  Peaslee. 

It  seems,  that  on  the  niglit  previous  to  the  day  on  which  the 
members  of  this  Yearly  Meeting  had  been  accustomed  to  meet, 
the  house  was  garrisoned — they  liept  watching;  they  kept  up 
their  nightly  vigils,  until  the  hour  should  come  round  for  the 
meeting  to  convene.  And  not  on,ly  so,  but  the  Indian  com- 
mittee must  take  possession  early  in  the  morning,  although 
they  had  adjourned,  to  meet  in  the  afternoon  of  that  day.  Not- 
withstanding this  formal  adjournment,  by  some  strange  mis- 
take, they  met  and  took  possession  of  the  house  at  eight 
o'clock  in  the  morning. 

What  was  done  all  this  time  by  the  other  Friends?  They 
have  been  examined,  and  cross-examined,  with  all  the  inge- 
nuity for  which  the  opposite  counsel  are  so  remarkable;  and 
from  all  this,  it  appears  that  they  held  their  meetings  and  con- 
ferences, in  which  they  concluded  to  go  to  meeting,  as  they 
had  done  heretofore.  They  knew  that  a  Meeting  for  Suffer- 
ings had  been  gathered  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  they 
met  to  consider  their  desolate  situation.  It  was  desolate, 
certainly,  to  be  turned  out  of  doors,  barred,  and  locked  out.  And 
from  appearances,  they  were  afraid  the  same  result  would  hap- 
pen the  next  day.  Had  they  not  grounds  then,  when  this  whole 
train  of  evils  was  brought  upon  them,  for  consultation  with 
each  other,  as  to  what  was  best  to  be  done?  Not  what  they 
would  do  against  others;  for  they  were  not  disposed  to  do  any 
thing  against  them.  It  was  thought  best  to  assemble  in  the 
yard,  and  there,  to  consider  what  further  should  be  done. 
And  if  they  could  not  gain  admittance  quietly  and  peaceably, 
they  would  retire  to  the  old  meeting  house,  and  there  worship 
their  (iod,  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences, 
in  quiet.  And  this  is  nothing  but  what  any  citizen  may  do. 
For  the  constitution  says,  that  people  shall  have  a  right  to 


ki 


at  SteubtiivilU,  Ohio. 


£45 


meet  together;  and  if  politicians  may  meet,  it  is  strange  if 
religious  individuals  are  to  ha  denied  this  inestimable  privi- 
lege. This,  by  the  by,  was  not  the  view  of  the  whole  party; 
there  were  some  one,  two,  or  three,  who  were  disposed  to 
pursue  a  difterent  course.  They  talked  of  it  with  no  secrecy, 
but  their  design  was  expressly  negatived;  for  Friends  were 
determined  that  no  violence  should  be  offered. 

W ell,  Second-day  arrives.  Very  early  the  house  is  filled  ; 
and  after  much  hinderance  and  difficulty.  Friends  get  in.  But 
all  the  high  places  are  previously  occupied.  Nathan  Gal- 
breath  and  others,  venerable  men,  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  sit  upon  the  higher  seats,  finding  that  all  these  seats  were 
occupied,  sat  down  quietly,  upon  other  seats.  Having  got 
into  the  house,  the  meeting,  according  to  usual  form  and 
order,  became  quiet  and  calm.  It  was  then  a  proper  time 
for  any  motion  to  be  made. 

Israel  French,  a  man  of  high  standing  in  the  society,  one  who 
had  never  been  disowned,  and  against  whom  naught  can  be 
said,  rose  and  made  a  proposition.  It  was  properly  made,  as 
we  have  seen,  heretofore,  from  good  authority,  and  the  rea- 
son of  the  case.  We  have  also  seen  that  the  clerk  is  but  a 
mere  servant  of  the  meeting,  that  he  only  executes  the  mind 
of  the  people.  We  have  seen,  from  the  Discipline,  that  his 
term  of  service  cannot  arise,  except  from  the  next  day.  This 
proposition,  on  the  part  of  Israel  French,  was  at  a  time  when 
the  meeting  was  in  order.  It  was  made  in  order,  on  his  part, 
and  was  properly  before  the  meeting.  I  know  it  has  been 
contended,  that  this  was  disorderly.  I  am  not  certain  but 
that  one,  or  perhaps  more,  of  the  witnesses  on  the  opposite 
side  may  have  said  that  it  was  out  of  order.  But  we  have 
from  fifteen  to  twenty  witnesses  saying,  it  was  not  out  of  order. 
And  I  venture  to  say,  that  neither  this  court,  nor  any  other 
person,  can  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  pronounce  that  it  was  in 
order. 

A  supreme  body,  being  there  assembled,  with  supreme  pow- 
er, to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  perfect  democracy,  had  a 
right  to  carry  their  will  into  execution.  And  any  individual 
member  had  a  right  to  submit  a  proposition  for  the  considera- 
tion of  this  meeting.  Here,  I  will  now  ask,  lest  I  forget  it, 
notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  and  can  be  said  by  the 
other  party,  as  to  its  being  erroneous:  can  that  proposition, 
under  the  law  of  this  state,  be  considered  a  proposition  to  dis- 
turb that  meeting,  by  reason  of  its  irregularity.''  If  so,  and  if 
that  is  to  be  a  precedent,  must  not  every  member  take  care, 
at  the  peril  of  fine  and  imprisonment,  how  he  brings  forward 
a  proposition  not  technically  right,  before  lawyers  and  a  court? 
We  contend  it  was  altogether  proper.  We  contend  that  it 
was  so,  not  only  for  the  reasons  that  I  have  stated,  but,  from 
31 


246 


Trial  of  Friends 


precedent.  The  case  in  Indiana  was  one  in  which  the  clerk 
was  present,  andxhe  proposition  was  made  to  appoint  another, 
on  account  of  the  disability  of  the  clerk.  It  Ijas  been  suggest- 
ed that  the  clerk  himself  requested  it.  But  that  does  not  alter 
the  cage — it  does  not  alter  the  case  a  whit;  for  the  power  and 
the  right  are  the  same.  That  incident  in  Indiana  shows 
clearly  and  conclusively,  that  the  appointment  of  a  clerk  was 
the  act  of  the  meeting,  and  that  they  Vcre  the  proper  persons. 
It  shows  the  truth  of  the  position,  that  if  there  is  a  disquali- 
fication on  the  part  of  the  member,  or  the  clerk,  it  is  proper 
to  propose  another  in  his  stead.  It  is  proper,  if  there  be  any 
disqualification;  for,  it  is  a  legitimate  matter  for  the  meeting. 
The  position  of  the  meeting's  having  jurisdiction,  is,  there- 
fore, correct,  and  the  opposite  counsel  cannot  escape  it. 
There  was  an  instance  in  this  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  where  the 
power  was  exercised  in  the  same  summary  manner.  The 
clerk  was  not  present,  and  the  meeting  had  the  power  to  ap- 
point another,  and  exercised  it.  But  we  have  other  cases — one 
in  Smithfield.  There,  there  was  a  disqualification  not  known 
to  the  great  body  of  the  meeting.  It  appears  that  the  persons 
who  acted  upon  this  question,  were  not  at  the  time  acquainted 
with  the  nature  of  the  disqualification,  but  found  out  after- 
wards the  charges  alleged  against  the  incumbent,  who  was 
superseded.  But  there  is  another  case  testified  to,  by  the  wit- 
nesses for  the  prosecution. 

In  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  a  proposition  was  made  for 
the  meeting  to  appoint  a  new  clerk,  and  having  considered  the 
proposition,  there  was  a  division  of  sentiment  in  the  society, 
so  that  they  could  not  agree — there  not  being  unity,  the  old 
clerk  continued.  This  is  in  perfect  accordance  with,  and 
goes  to  exemplify,  what  I  have  stated — that  the  opinion  of  the 
society  is  gathered  by  unity  of  expression ;  that  is,  by  the 
number  of  voices  uniting  in  the  affirmative;  those  who  say 
nothing  are  also  considered  as  in  the  affirmative.  Here,  then, 
in  Ohio,  if  there  had  been  a  general  objection  to  French's 
proposition,  they  all  tell  you,  there  would  have  been  no  uproar, 
because  it  would  have  passed  off  a,s  other  propositions  have, 
in  the  Yearly  Meeting.  It  was,  therefore,  tlie  duty  of  those 
opposed,  to  rise  and  object  to  the  measure,  to  have  given  their 
voice  against  it.  But  instead  of  that,  they  did  not,  as  we  shall 
see. 

But  if  a  further  instance  be  wanted,  I  will  call  the  attention 
of  the  court  to  the  case  at  Concord,  (or  New  Garden)  where 
the  clerk  was  superseded.  There  the  clerk  was  seated  at  the 
table — was  in  full  membership;  and  a  member  rose  and  moved 
that  another  be  appointed  in  his  place.  Will  the  gentleman 
now  undertake  to  make  a  disti'iction  whether  the  clerk  be  in 
the  house  or  not;  if  so,  it  will  be  exploding  the  idea,  that  the. 


i 


at  Sieubenville^  Ohio. 


247 


clerk  is  the  head  of  the  meeting;  though  that  idea  was  explod- 
ed long  ago.  Then,  if  the  clerk  was  at  the  table,  and  was 
about  to  read  an  opening  minute,  or  had  read  an  opening 
minute,  and  a  proposition  was  made  that  the  old  clerk  should 
be  displaced,  and  a  new  clerk  appointed  in  his  place,  and  this 
was  united  with  by  the  meeting,  the  right  to  do  so  was  ad- 
judged by  that  meeting. 

From  all  these  cases  that  have  happened,  from  the  considera- 
tion of  the  supreme  power  of  this  meeting,  and  the  democratic 
form  of  it,  which  all  go  to  prove,  that  there  was  no  impropriety 
in  submitting  that  proposition,  we  do  conceive,  that  it  was 
regularly  submitted,  and  properly  before  the  meeting,  when 
it  proceeded  to  business. 

The  next  inquiry  is,  by  whom  was  that  proposition  made? 
It  was  made  by  Israel  French.  The  proposition  was  received 
by  the  meeting.  What  meeting  was  it.''  It  was  the  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting;  for  up  to  that  time  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  was 
not  divided.  Being  received  by  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  how 
did  they  dispose  of  it?  They  united  with  it,  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  society.  I  am  aware  that  one  of  our  own  wit- 
nesses testified  very  feelingly  and  honourably,  that  he  supposed 
at  the  time,  none  of  the  orthodox  did  concur  in  the  sentiment. 
We  have  not  that  to  judge  of.  We,  sitting  here,  are  only  to 
say  that  it  was,  as  appertaining  to  th«  members  of  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting — the  opinion  of  the  great  body  of  the  people, 
so  far  as  expressed,  was  altogether  in  favour  of  this  proposi- 
tion. Was  there  any  objection.'^  Most  of  the  witnesses  did 
not  hear  any.  The  objection,  if  any,  was  so  small,  that  the 
unity  was  as  great  as  was  ever  known  to  be  expressed  in  the 
Yearly  Meeting.  It  was  entirely  carried  fairly  and  regularly, 
aacording  to  the  usage  of  the  society,  before  the  second  pro- 
position was  made. 

Who  was  the  second  proposition  made  by?  By  one  of  the 
regular  members  of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  who  had  never  been 
disowned  by  even  the  belligerent  party.  He  named  David 
Hilles  as  a  suitable  person  to  supply  the  place  of  Jonathan 
Taylor.  This  was  received  in  like  manner,  according  to  the 
custom  and  usage  of  the  society,  by  voices  uniting  in  it.  And 
there  was  no  objection  except  by  two  or  three.  The  opinion 
was  full  as  great  as  ever  was  known  in  that  meeting.  As  I 
understand  their  proceedings,  when  there  is  a  small  objection 
to  a  large  expression,  it  is  considered  a  unity,  unless  those 
objecting  are  determined  not  to  give  up;  or  insist  on  advo- 
cating the  converse  of  the  proposition.  But  further,  Mr.  Israel 
Updegraft'  was  mistaken,  when  he  said  that  none  of  the  ortho- 
dox united:  for  it  is  in  testimony  that  Daniel  Burt  did  unite 
with  the  others,  in  the  nomination  of  David  Hilles.  Nothing 
is  more  reasonable  than  this:  for,  notwithstanding  the  angry 


248 


Trial  of  Friends 


feelings  that  prevail,  yet  there  will  be  found,  on  both  sides, 
those  who  are  willing  to  do  something  for  restoring  peace. 
The  day  before,  Taylor  had  done  much  against  Peaslee;  and 
it  was  perhaps  Burt's  wish,  to  heal,  if  possible,  the  difference 
in  the  society.  I  see  that  some  smile  at  this  affair,  as  though 
there  were  no  charitable  feelings  existing  in  those  of  the  or- 
thodox party,  during  the  pendency  of  this  strife  and  division. 
Surely  it  would  have  been  better,  if  they  had  all  been  influenced 
by  the  same  feelings:  for  the  way  was  open  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  David  Hilles,  a  reputable  member  from  Redstone,  a 
Quarter  not  divided,  thus  to  reconcile  their  difficulties  in 
peace  and  unity.  There  is  no  doubt  that  under  these  feelings 
Burt  did  unite.  Elisha  Bates  himself,  the  leader  of  this  party, 
says,  that  Burt  has  always  been  known  to  be  a  Friend.  And 
we  know  by  that,  that  he  is  known  to  be  .orthodox.  Smith 
proves  the  same  thing.  Here  then  was  a  unity  composed  of 
persons  of  both  sides,  and  others  than  those  termed  Hicksites. 
There  is  not  a  particle  of  testimony  before  this  court,  that  goes 
to  prove  that'  it  was  only  the  Hicksites,  or  anti-orthodox,  that 
supported  this  proposition.  The  court  cannot  judge  except 
by  and  from  the  testimony.  It  is  evident  that  there  was  a 
general  unity  all  over  the  house.  Now  the  witnesses  that  tes- 
tify go  along  with  my  position.  Observe  that,  of  the  old  steady 
members,  and  it  will  be  found  that  the  proceeding  was  per- 
fectly in  order.  Take  the  testimony,  for  instance,  of  Levi 
Pickering,  a  man  of  age  and  experience.  He  says  he  paid 
particular  attention;  and  that  the  manner  of  saying  "  I  unite," 
"  I  unite,"  was  orderly.  Sometimes  there  were  several  voices 
heard  together,  as  it  was  a  large  assembly,  and  many  were 
agreeing  to  it.  But  none  repeated  it  over,  but  two,  one  of 
whom,  as  it  is  stated  by  his  orthodox  brother,  repyeated  it  three 
or  four  times.  He  just  came  in  and  went  out.  We  could  not 
say  whether  he  thus  united  in  but  one,  or  in  the  various  pro- 
positions. The  testimony  designates  two  persons,  and  Daniel 
Burt  is  one  of  them. 

Levi  Pickering  and  Elisha  Bates  cannot  say,  whether  it  was 
before  or  after  they  had  done  uniting  in  the  nomination  of 
Hilles,  that  Taylor,  disregarding  the  usage  of  the  society,  and 
the  feelings  of  those  assembled  in  the  house,  whose  feelings 
had  been  lacerated  by  the  course  put  in  operation  against 
them,  commenced  a  disorderly  reading  of  the  opening  minute. 
Thence  one  thing  followed  another.  Those  who  considered 
the  meeting  as  having  united-— those  who  considered  that  the 
meeting  had,  in  a  quiet  and  orderly  manner,  united  in  the 
nomination  of  Hilles,  conceived  that  Taylor  was  acting  disor- 
derly and  improperly :  and  it  so  appears  in  the  testimony.  It 
was  from  one  thing  to  another  that  the  disturbance  arose. 
And  I  say  the  commencement  was  on  the  part  of  Taylor.  Let 


I 


al  Steubenvillc,  Ohio. 


2.19 


us  reverse  the  thing,  and  place  the  Hicksites  in  the  galleries, 
and  the  others  down  below;  and  suppose  then  that  the  Hicks- 
ites had  undertaken  to  read  an  opening  minute,  Benjamin  W. 
Ladd  8c  Co.  would  not  have  waited  to  go  to  Steubcnville. 
They  would  have  sued  out  an  action  before  the  first  magis- 
trate they  could  find;  and  they  would  have  sustained  it.  And 
if  the  clerk  had  done  as  Jonathan  Taylor  did,  they  would  have 
done  right  to  prosecute.  "  There  would  have  been  greater 
ground  than  there  is  in  this  instance,  and  so  it  would  have  ap- 
peared to  all  these  orthodox  people,  because  their  prejudices 
would  all  have  been  enlisted  on  their  own  side. 
Court  adjourned  till  9  o'clock,  A.  M.  to-morrow. 

Thursday,  October  23,  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 

Mr.  Hubbard  in  continuation. — At  the  time  of  the  adjourn- 
ment, I  was  proceeding  to  show,  that  the  proposition,  as  sub- 
mitted by  Israel  French,  and  the  nomination  of  Hilles,  were 
in  regular  order,  according  to  the  usages  of  the  society :  and 
that,  being  propositions  made  according  to  the  usages  and  cus- 
toms of  the  society,  by  a  portion  of  that  society,  before  the 
separation,  their  adoption  was  an  act  of  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
In  addition  to  the  reasons  I  have  given,  why  this  proposition 
was  correct,  I  will  at  this  time  refer  the  court  to  the  witnesses 
who  paid  the  most  attention,  and  who  have  thrown  the  most 
light  upon  the  subject.  These  are  Levi  Pickering,  David 
Scholfield,  Israel  Updegraff,  Israel  French,  James  Tolerton 
and  Jehu  Lewis,  all  of  whom  testify  that  the  proposition  was 
made  previous  to  reading  the  opening  minute:  that  it  was 
made  when  there  was  nothing  else  before  the  meeting:  that  it 
was  received  by  the  meeting,  and  there  can  be  no  separation 
of  parties  at  this  time:  that  it  was  united  in  by  the  meeting 
in  the  usual  way.  These  witnesses  all  testify  that  before  the 
meeting  had  quite  done  uniting,  and  while  some  voices  were 
still  saying,  "I  unite,"  the  old  clerk  commenced  reading  the 
opening  minute. 

I  am  aware  that  Joseph  Updegraff  and  Elisha  Bates  have 
both  testified,  that  they  are  not  certain,  whether  the  opening 
minute  was  read  just  before,  or  after.  Taylor  feels  pretty 
confident,  that  he  had  commenced  reading  the  opening  minute, 
at  the  time  the  nomination  of  Hilles  was  made.  There  is 
another  point  of  view  that  I  consider  material.  It  is  this. 
That  all  make  out  the  position  undeniably,  that  the  meeting 
had  united  in  the  proposition  to  displace  the  old  clerk,  and  to 
substitute  another,  before  the  opening  minute  was  read.  And 
that  proposition  having  been  united  in,  the  old  clerk  was  en- 
tirely out  of  order,  in  proceeding,  even  if  he  read  at  the  time 
Taylor  himself  says  he  did  read.  But,  in  my  view,  as  there 
is  but  one  witness,  and  thai  Mr.  Taylor,  who  thinks  that  the 


250 


Trial  of  Friends 


opening  nainute  was  read  previous  to  the  nomination;  and  as 
there  are  so  many  other  witnesses  of  great  candour  and  under- 
standing, who  say,  he  read  it  while  they  were  uniting  in  the 
nomination  of  Hilles;  I  am  inclined  to  adopt  the  testimony  of 
these  numerous  witnesses,  rather  than  that  of  Taylor,  as  he 
must  have  been  discomposed  at  the  time.  From  my  know- 
ledge of  Mr.  Taylor,  I  have  no  doubt  he  is  a  quiet,  honest, 
inoffensive  man:  and  that  while  they  were  uniting,  others  said 
to  him,  go  on;  and  if  the  truth  were  known,  he  probably  went 
on,  contrary  to  his  own  will,  being  urged  to  proceed,  by  Bates 
and  others  who  sat  near  by  him. 

Now  the  proposition  for  displacing,  on  the  ground  of  dis- 
qualification, be  the  cause  good  or  bad,  should  be  disposed  of 
before  any  thing  else  is  taken  up,  as  is  shown  by  the  testi- 
mony, and  the  nature  of  the  society.  We  are  supported  in 
this  position  by  the  authorities  I  have  read,  but  to  which  I 
will  refer  the  court  again. — (2rf  vol.  Gough,  167.  Clarkson,  2d 
vol.  210,  211,  and  228.) 

Now  these  authorities  are  in  support  of  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses,  and  show  this  point  clearly;  that  when  a  pro- 
position is  brought  before  this  meeting,  which  is  a  clear  de- 
mocracy, it  must  be  disposed  of,  before  any  thing  else  can  be 
introduced,  or  taken  up.  This,  then,  being  the  case,  it  must 
be  evident,  from  the  usages  of  the  society,  as  testified  to,  and 
from  the  authorities,  that  Taylor  was  the  one  in  error,  in  read- 
ing the  opening  minute.  I  know  it  has  been  asked  in  relation 
to  this  point,  how  was  it  to  be  done?  How  was  this  proposi- 
tion to  be  entered,  if  the  clerk  were  displaced  ?  This  is  easily 
answered,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  transaction:  the  clerk 
being  put  in,  makes  the  minute,  that  such  an  individual  being 
indisposed,  or  disqualified  to  act  as  clerk,  A.  B.  was  put  in 
his  place.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  minutes  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting.  I  refer  to  page  9,  of  the  printed  minutes.  "Our 
clerk  being  indisposed,  Jonathan  Taylor  was  appointed  in  his 
place." — Here  the  clerk  was  indisposed,  and  the  meeting 
wanted  a  clerk.  Some  one  probably  proposed,  and  the  meet- 
ing appointed  a  clerk.  And  Taylor,  when  he  gets  there, 
makes  an  entry.  It  is  evident  he  made  it,  because  there  was 
no  other  clerk  there.  The  other  clerk  was  out  of  the  house. 
It  shows  that  he  succeeded  him.  He  comes  there,  and  makes 
the  entry  of  what  the  meeting  had  done.  The  conclusion  is 
inevitable.  The  opposite  party  cannot  escape  from  it.  I  hope 
the  opposite  counsel  will  not  attempt  to  urge  that  the  assistant 
clerk  could  have  done  it.  It  would  be  in  the  face  of  every  bit 
of  the-  testimony.  The  assistant  clerk  is,  so  far  as  regards 
clerkship,  a  perfect  cipher.  The  title  of  assistant  clerk  has 
grown  up  by  courtesy;  but  he  never  makes  an  entry,  record, 
or  minute.    The  assistant  clerk  could  have  no  power  to  act  in 


at  Sleubenvillc,  Ohio. 


251 


this  thing.  Again,  the  assistant  clerk  is  altogether  dependant 
on  the  clerk.  A  clerk  collects  the  proceedings  or  sense  of 
the  meeting.  When  created,  creates  an  assistant,  ipso  facto. 
In  this  case,  as  is  stated,  Israel  French  moved  the  displacing 
of  the  clerks.  He  had  his  reasons,  and  has  given  his  reasons, 
that  some  way  he  understood  the  expression  to  be  clerks,  though 
not  confident;  but  keeping  in  view,  that  the  assistant  was  al- 
together dependant  on  the  other,  the  removal  would  compre- 
hend both.  And  by  the  meeting's  uniting  in  the  proposition, 
both  were  absolutely  removed.  That  being  the  fact,  the  con- 
duct of  Taylor  and  Kimberly  was  absolutely  void,  and  a  mere 
nothing,  except  the  means  of  creating  the  uproar  that  followed. 
And  we  see  what  followed.  "  Friends,  are  you  going  to  let 
your  clerk  be  kept  from  the  table?"  "  Why  don't  the  clerk 
come  to  the  table?"  Others  say,  he  shan't  come;  we  have  got 
it  all  arranged.  The  high  seats  are  filled,  and  the  alleys  lined 
with  big  and  brawny  men  prepared  for  combat.  Disorder  is 
introduced  and  made,  on  the  part  of  those  who  went  contrary 
to  the  usages  and  customs  of  the  society.  As  I  have  said 
before,  and  as  we  now  see  the  operation  of  it,  there  was  great 
disunity  throughout  the  Yearly  Meeting.  And  we  find  it 
more  strongly  marked  on  the  part  of  the  complainants,  than 
on  the  part  of  the  others.  The  proposition  is  this:  notwith- 
standing this  disunity  over  the  Yearly  Meeting — notwithstand- 
ing the  parties  came  with  repulsive  feelings,  one  towards  the 
other,  and  were  as  guilty,  the  one  as  the  other;  yet,  at  the 
same  time,  up  to  the  period  of  a  clear  expression  of  the  Yearly- 
Meeting,  composed  of  all  of  them,  disunity  did  not  exist,  ex- 
cept bet^^een  the  members  forming  constituent  parts  of  this 
Yearly  Meeting.  Here  is  a  principle  that  I  laid  down  before, 
that  although  they  approached  this  meetingin  a  slate  in  which 
one  member  was  embittered  against  another,  Hicksites  would 
not  answer  orthodox,  and  orthodox  would  not  answer  the  other 
party:  one  stating,  that  he  did  not  answer  to  his  name,  be- 
cause he  considered  it  disordeHy,  and  the  clerks  having  been 
removed,  Kimberly  had  no  business  to  call  over  the  names; 
yet,  as  regards  union,  up  to  the  time  of  this  division,  they  were 
constituent  parts  of  the  same  Yearly  Meeting.  But  that  their 
minds  were  so  discomposed,  that  they  were  ready  to  separate 
and  divide,  is  evident.  On  this  point,  there  is  nothing  more 
strongly  marked,  than  the  testimony  in  relation  to  Thomas 
Shillitoe  at  the  Quarterly  Meeting.  He  introduces  a  resolu- 
tion, and  makes  a  statement,  that  it  is  best  for  them  to  take 
decisive  measures,  to  bar  out  all  the  Hicksites.  This  is  a  reso- 
lution, without  reference  to  the  rights  of  membership,  civil  as 
well  as  religious:  to  bar  and  exclude  all,  except  those  who 
agree  with  the  orthodox  in  sentiment.  Here  it  may  be  al- 
leged, that  Shillitoe,  being  not  within  the  bounds  of  the 


252 


Trial  of  Friends 


Quarterly,  had  no  right  to  make  that  suggestion  ;  or  otherwise, 
that  the  clerk  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  in  ascertaining  the 
sense  of  the  Quarter,  ought  not  to  have  taken  into  considera- 
tion the  voice  of  Shillitoe.  To  this,  I  agree.  But  if  any 
member  out  of  the  limits,  make  a  suggestion,  it  is  right;  he 
may  give  his  view,  and  if  the  meeting  unite  in  It,  there  is 
nothing  improper.  If  the  meeting  that  the  strange  member 
meets  with,  unite  in  his  suggestion,  it  is  the  act  of  the  meet- 
ing. We  see  the  effect,  from  the  testimony  in  relation  to  Hal- 
liday  Jackson,  who  was  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Philadel- 
phia. He  made  a  proposition,  which  was  probably  suggested 
by  the  good  old  book,  "agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly, 
while  thou  art  in  the  way  with  him."  Yet  he  was  abruptly 
ordered  to  sit  down;  because  he  was,  in  the  language  of  the 
person  who  spoke,  an  obtruder.  If  the  proposition  made  by 
Halliday  Jackson  had  been  united  in,  then  it  would  have  been 
the  act  of  the  meeting,  correctly  expressed,  although  coming 
from  a  stranger.  But  we  see  from  the  whole  course  of  the 
testimony,  that  the  sentiments  of  the  Englishman  were  car- 
ried into  effect;  and  that  the  party  called  orthodox,  were  com- 
pletely organized.  I  am  not  going  to  use  any  epithets,  as 
thrown  out  on  the  other  side,  that  they  were  in  a  disorganizing, 
revolutionizing  spirit;  but,  I  say,  that  they  had  a  complete 
understanding  among  themselves,  agreeable  to  Shillitoe's  ad- 
vice. And  we  prove  it,  by  showing  that  every  one  of  these 
left  the  meeting  together.  And  at  that  period  of  time,  there 
was  the  first  division  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  with  an  under- 
standing, and  without  the  interference  of  the  other  party.  It 
was  because  the  orthodox  had  united  together,  and  because 
others  would  not  unite  with  them,  they  had  agreed  to  disagree, 
with  all  those,  who,  with  themselves,  formerly  composed  the 
Yearly  Meeting.  See  the  language  of  Elisha  Bates,  "  keep 
still  a  little  while,  and  we  will  withdraw  and  leave  you."  This 
was  the  language  of  a  chief.  This  was  said  by  one,  having 
great  weight  in  the  society;  and  they  agree,  and  go  away;  and 
by  going  together,  they  show  that  they  had  agreed  to  dis- 
agree. 

On  this  point  I  will  say  a  few  words  in  answer  to  the  obser- 
vations which  have  been  made  as  to  majorities.  Which  way 
the  majority  is,  is  of  little  consequence,  though  perhaps  it  may 
be  necessary  to  meet  the  argument  on  the  other  side.  From 
the  testimony  of  those  interested,  there  is  a  colouring  given, 
to  be  accounted  for,  only  by  the  zeal  and  prejudice  by  which 
they  were  actuated.  The  leaders  of  the  orthodox  party  think, 
that  two-thirds  went  with  them,  and  I  am  not  going  to  dispute 
the  affirmation  of  those  gentlemen  ;  for  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  more  or  less.  But  when  you  come  to  refer  to  an- 
other witness,  you  will  find  that  the  division  was  about  equal, 


4 


at  Steube.n-o'ille.  Ohio. 


253 


settinti;  aside  citizens,  and  members  not  belonging  to  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting.  And  he  says,  he  could  not  say  which  party 
w<M-e  the  largest  number;  they  seemo<l  to  be  about  equal. 
'I'he  best  testimony  is  to  be  found  in  those  who  counted  the 
benches,  and  the  persons  seated  on  them,  and  at  the  time  esti- 
mated the  Huml)er.  From  these,  it  wiil  be  found,  that  from 
six  to  seven  hundred  remained  after  the  orthodox,  had  with- 
drawn, and  after  the  strangers  had  left  the  house.  I  allude  to 
this,  only  to  show,  that  there  was  a  great  division  in  the 
Yearly  Meeting. 

Those  who  conduct  the  prosecution,  and  their  witnesses, 
have  endeavoured  to  show,  that  there  was  some  kind  of  sys- 
tem of  0|)eration,  or  connexion  of  events,  all  dependins:  on  a 
preconcerted  plan.  On  this  subject  I  will  say  a  few  words  in 
relation  to  the  testimony  of  Bates  and  Ladd,  who  endeavour 
to  give  an  idea  that  the  alarm  was  made,  and  advantage  taken 
of  that  alarm;  and  that  those  who  said,  "let  us  surrender," 
were  Hicksitcs,  and  also  those  who  huzzaed  for  Jackson.  They 
have  tried  to  create  an  impression  that  there  was  a  iire-concert 
and  understanding  upon  the  subject,  but  we  have  shown  that, 
previous  to  the  meeting,  there  was  no  concert.  Israel  French, 
with  whom  Amos  Peaslee  and  some  other  ministers  stopped, 
testifies  that  there  was  no  such  thing.  The  same  is  proved  by 
Bevan  and  Updegraff.  And  as  to  tumult,  it  is  evident  that 
the  alarm  was  altogether  accidental,  and  could  have  been  no 
part  of  the  alleged  plan,  as  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Carroll  and  others.  When  the  people  left  the  house,  Cari'oll 
walked  up  and  put  his  hand  on  the  table;  and  the  clerk  might 
have  then  taken  possession.  But  all  parties  rushed  out  of 
the  house,  Hicksiies  as  well  as  orthodox.  Several  calls  were 
made  on  the  people,  not  to  run;  and  it  is  shown,  that  thesa 
c  alls  came  from  those  denominated  Hicksites.  As  soon  as  they 
discovered  that  the  galleries  were  not  falling,  they  mentioned  * 
it,  and  tried  to  stay  the  multitude.  Then,  in  point  of  fact,  we 
have  the  testimony  of  William  Dilworth,  that  the  first  alarm 
he  heard  was  from  William  Judkins.  Judkins  says  he  got 
the  first  alarm  from  tlic  gallery.  Hamilton  heard  a  remark, 
that  the  railitig  was  giving  way;  and  we  see  how  it  might 
have  spread;  for  .Judkins  gave  the  alarm,  and  out  of  the  win- 
dow he  went.  The  noise  of  which  Taylor  testifies,  instead  of 
being  the  breaking  of  a  lath,  was  the  breaking  of  a  foot-i)oar(l 
in  the  ministers'  gallery,  among  the  orthodox,  which  was  the 
cause  of  so  much  uproar,  which  is  endeavoured  to  be  charged 
upon  the  other  party.  Abraham  Dilworth  concurs  in  this. 
The  alarm  spread  at  once,  and  no  doubt  many  cried  out  that 
the  galleries  were  falling.  In  a  criminal  prosecution,  no  such 
thing  can  have  weight. 

As  to  the  other  accusation,  made  by  Benjamin  W.  Ladd, 
32 


254 


Trial  of  FnenJs 


what  art:  the  facts?  lie  slates  that  he  he^ud  some  one,  in  the 
ministers'  gallery,  say,  now  let  us  surrender,  the  table  is  gone. 
He  delayed  a  little  in  going  out,  to  make  observations.  He 
was  a  kind  of  rear  guard.  He  discovered  that  this  person, 
who  made  the  proposition  for  surretidcring,  remained  in  the 
house.  Now  he,  it  seems,  made  the  expiession  himself.  It 
was  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  himself.  And  yethc  was  so  confused 
that  he  thought  it  was  somebody  else. 

Then,  having  adverted  to  all  the  positions  that  the  opposite 
party  can  present,  I  say,  the  case  is  one  which  was  Tievei  in- 
tended to  be  embraced  by  this  statute.  The  Yearly  Meeiing 
was  composed  of  all  its  members,  up  to  the  time  that  Elisha 
Bates  said,  "  keep  still,  and  we  will  withdraw  and  leave  you." 
The  members  still  cotitinue  to  hold  their  civil  rights  in  this 
property.  The  meeting,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  dis- 
turbed in  the  manner  contemplated  by  the  statute. 

There  needs  but  one  reflection,  to  understand  the  affidavit  of 
Benjamin  W.  Ladd.  When  Elisha  Bates  and  Benjamin  W. 
Ladd  testify,  in  speaking  of  Friends,  they  mean  those  only 
with  whom  they  associate.  They,  in  their  testimony,  know 
no  other  Monthly,  Quarterly,  or  Yearly  Meeting.  That  affi- 
davit meant,  at  the  time,  that  they,  that  is,  the  orthodox,  were 
the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeiing;  and  its  purpose  was,  to  get  a  deci- 
sion of  the  law,  that  they  were  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends. 
The  whole  meaning  of  this,  as  taken  from  the  whole  testimony 
together,  is,  that  they  intended  to  get  a  decision  of  the  court, 
that  they  were  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.  It  is  true,  the  court 
and  every  lawyer  must  know,  that  it  will  not  have  the  effect 
which  they  supposed  it  would  have.  It  will  not  decide  the 
right  of  property;  Jior  will  they  have  hold  of  the  property  so 
easily  as  they  think.  But  that  such  was  their  intention,  is 
evident; — there  can  be  i\o  doubt.  And  the  question  is  placed 
on  the  ground,  whether  the  party  who  went  off'  under  the  ad- 
vice of  Elisha  Bates,  were  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  those  who 
remained  under  his  friendly  advice,  "  keep  still,  and  we  will 
withdraw  and  leave  you,"  disturbed  them  while  they  were 
solely  constituting  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting?  There  is  where 
it  comes. 

If  all,  except  these  chosen  orthodox,  were  mere  interlopers 
and  intruders — if  David  Hilles,  a  member  and  representative 
from  Redstone  Quarterly  Meeting,  had  no  right  there — if  Isaac 
James  had  no  right  there,  though  a  member  of  Concord  Month- 
ly Meeting,  and  that  meeting  could  be  laid  dow  n,  and  the  pro- 
ceedings are  not  all  void — if  those  six  hundred  persons,  with 
a  great  majority  of  the  society,  in  Ohio  and  other  states — if 
they  are  to  be  treated  as  intruders,  and  Benjamin  W.  Ladd 
and  Eli-sha  Bates  are  to  be  considered  immaculate,  why  let  the 
decision  go  against  these  defendants.     But  if  they  constituted 


at  Sieiibeiiville,  Ohio. 


255 


a  pai  t  of  llie  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  wlio  were  thus  warring 
between  themselves,  then  this  proceeding  cannot  stand,  nor 
be  supported  by  the  statute;  because  the  statute  must  be  ap- 
plied to  some  person  wiio  interrupts  and  disturbs  a  society^ 
and  the  society  is  not  complete,  till  you  take  the  whole  into 
consideration.  And  taking  it  so,  they  are  not  disturbed  under 
the  meaning  of  the  act,  if  there  is  a  quarrel  among  them- 
selves. 

We  see  the  effect,  if  we  take  the  reverse.  The  whole  law 
becomes  perverted,  and  becomes  an  engine  to  establish  a  stand- 
ard of  religion  throughout  our  country.  Suppose  those  per- 
sons who  were  in  this  house,  who  have  been,  by  way  of  deri- 
sion, called  Hicksites,  had  been  led  into  an  error  of  the  head, 
and  not  of  the  heart,  and  being  engaged  in  that  which  usually 
pertains  to  this  society,  had  made  a  proposition,  which  they 
had  adjudged,  though  erroneously,  to  be  on  the  strongest 
ground;  are  they  then  to  be  put  down,  because  their  head  is 
not  as  wise  as  that  of  a  technical  lawyer,  and  their  hearts  dic- 
tated that  which  turns  out  to  be  incorrect?  It  cannot  be.  It 
would  be  giving  one  part  of  the  society  leave,  of  their  own 
accord,  to  set  themselves  up  as  being  better  and  more  correct 
than  the  others:  one  party  to  set  itself  up  in  array  against  an- 
other, calling  into  use  the  arm  of  the  law,  to  establish  them- 
selves in  authoi  ily  over  others,  who  have  equal  rights  with 
themselves. 

But  the  gentleman  may  say,  that  this  law  shall  embrace 
a  case  where  members  of  a  society  interrupt  others  of  the 
same  society.  I  should  not  object  to  admit  this,  with  proper 
caution;  but  this  is  a  position  which  i-equircs  the  utmost  care, 
because  Scylla  is  on  one  side,  and  Charybdis  on  the  other.  It 
would  be  an  interference  of  the  law,  between  the  religious 
rights  and  some  members  of  a  religious  community — a  case 
in  whirl)  the  membei's  conduct  was  such,  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  of  the  intent  being  to  disturb  and  molest  a  religious 
society,  in  which  he  is  a  member,  and  who  acted  wilfully  and 
maliciously.  There  may  be  a  case  of  that  kind;  but  it  is  not 
here.  James  did  not  do  so.  When  David  Hilles  received  the 
nomination,  in  the  usual  ordei-  of  the  society,  and  after  a  time, 
when  it  was  said  that  violence  had  been  used,  James  says,  I 
have  used  no  violence,  but  I  have  been  violently  treated  by 
Ladd.  The  malicious  intent  is  altogether  wanting.  It  is  evi- 
dent, on  the  solemn  affirmation  of  numerous  witnesses,  that 
their  sole  object  and  intent  was,  to  carry  into  execution  the 
proper  objects  of  the  society,  if  they  gained  admittance;  but 
if  violence  were  offered,  they  were  determined  not  to  return 
violence  for  violence,  but  to  retire  to  another  house,  and  wor- 
ship their  Maker  in  the  good  old  way.  The  object  of  propos- 
ing a  change  of  the  clerks  was  a  virtuous  and  Christian  one, 


256 


Will/  of  Friemh 


by  a  man  whose  cliaracler  cannot  be  atiacked — wliose  word  is 
immutable  as  eternal  truth,  on  this  subject.  It  was  with  re- 
gret, with  painful  feelings,  ihat  he  witnessed  this  stale  of  Uie 
society — his  oljjection  was,  that  the  clerk  had  become  a  vio- 
lent party  man,  and  peculiarly  offensive,  as  he  had  been  con- 
cerned in  putting  down  his  bretlireiv  and  in  enforcing  the 
reception  of  the  Indiana  epistle;  and  he  had  seceded  from  the 
large  portion  of  Friends  in  New  York,  with  whom  this  meet- 
ing had  perfect  community.  Israel  French  acted  under  the 
most  honourai)le  and  virtuous  feelings,  which  ever  animated 
the  human  breast. 

Now,  are  these  defendants  to  be  put  in  bonds  for  trying  to 
harmonize  the  two  parties?  Or  because  a  clerk  was  proposed 
wh,o  did  not  prove  acceptable  to  the  more  orthodox.'  Let  the 
orthodox  be  right  or  wrong,  being  a  portion  of  this  society,  it 
does  not  lie  in  their  mouths  to  say  that  this  was  to  disturb  that 
meeting.  It  was  an  act  to  which  the  others  did  not  object; 
and  it  was  carried  according  to  the  usages  of  the  society. 

One  word  in  conclusion.  It  is  not  this  party  that  either  bars 
doors  or  brings  suits.  It  is  not  this  party  that  can  be  truly 
charged  with  taking  an  unfriendly  course.  It  is  not  this  party 
that  has  made  a  breach  of  the  discipline,  in  bringing  this  suit 
and  putting  themselves  to  this  enormous  expense.  It  is  not 
they,  who  are  trampling  the  discipline  under  foot,  by  going 
into  courts  of  law  to  sue  their  brethren.  They  have  endeavour- 
ed to  act  as  Christians  and  brethren  should  act.  They  made  a 
proposition  against  a  man,  who,  the  other  side  say,  is  correct 
and  orthodox.  That  is  the  great  sin.  And  that  is  a  matter  of 
opinion,  between  members  of  the  same  society.  It  is  not  a 
matter  on  which  this  court  will  undertake  to  decide.  No. 
The  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  was  never  disturbed,  but  by  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting.  B.  W.  Ladd,  and  others  will  see  it,  meant, 
by  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  the  orthodox. 

I  say,  the  Yearly  Meeting  was  disturbed  by  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing. The  disorder  being  among  themselves — the  disturbance 
being  before  they  nret,  what  occurred  in  the  meeting,  was  but 
an  eruption.  The  Indiana  epistle  was  the  entering  wedge, 
which,  with  other  things,  caused  the  division — this  unhappy 
schism,  in  tiiis  great  and  once  peaceful  church.  The  members 
came  in  collision,  and  could  not  agree.  They  were  discordant. 
The  unity  was  gone.  They  were  broke  into  divisions,  and 
they  separated.  The  disturbance  was  among  the  members  of 
the  Yearly  Meeting.  It  was  the  members  who  made  it,  and 
the  members  alone,  are  subject  to  the  consequences.  No  reli- 
gious society,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  law,  was  ever  dis- 
turbed by  itself.  And  on  that  point  I  rest  this  case,  with 
perfect  assurance  of  the  acquittal  of  these  defendants. 


i 


at  Slrubenville,  Ohio. 


'257 


Spekch  of  Benjamin  Tappan,  tsq. 

In  operiiiiij  ihis  case,  the  counsel,  on  the  other  side,  appear 
desirous  to  exculpate  themselves  from  this  charge.  It  seemed 
to  be  taken.for  granted,  that  a  charge  being  made,  guilt  was 
to  be  presumed.  And  the  inquiry  was,  whether  there  was 
sufficient  evidence  to  exculpate  themselves.  I  take  it,  the  case 
stands  on  entirely  different  grounds:  that  the  prosecution  is,  in 
name,  a  prosecution  by  the  state,  against  these  two  individuals, 
for  a  breach  of  the  statute  law  of  the  state.  And  in  order  to 
establish  their  guilt  on  this  trial,  it  is  necessary  to  make  out 
by  evidence,  clearly  and  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  they 
are  guilty  of  the  facts  alleged  against  them.  This  is  a  trial; 
and  whether  there  be  an  appeal  from  his  honour  or  not,  it  is, 
in  form  and  substance,  a  trial  of  the  truth  of  the  charge  against 
these  men,  and  is  to  be  determined  as  all  other  criminal  cases 
are  tried  and  determined.  The  prosecution  must  make  out 
clearly  the  offence,  or  the  defendants  are  acquitted.  We  do 
not  stand  here  to  make  out  our  exculpation,  but  to  see  whether 
the  charges  have  been  supported. 

This  is  a  question,  undoubtedly,  of  great  interest;  and  that 
interest  is  not  inference.  Whether  two  men  have  been  guilty 
of  disturbing  a  religious  society,  and  are  to  be  subjected  to  a 
fine  of  twenty  dollars,  is  a  matter  of  very  little  consetiuonce  in 
itself.  But  it  is  of  consequence,  when  you  consider  that  this, 
instead  of  being  a  prosecution  by  the  vigilant  and  skilful  pro- 
secutor for  the  state,  is  brought  forward,  guaranteed,  and  nia 
naged  by  other  persons.  The  dispute  is  between  members  of 
a  large  and  respectable  religious  society.  If  it  were  a  prose- 
cution wherein  the  public  interest  was  concerned,  do  you 
suppose  the  public  pi-osecutor  would  abandon  it  to  others.^ 
That  he  would  not  feel  that  his  duty  rccjuired  him  to  attend  to 
the  interests  of  the  state,  whose  officer  he  is? 

If  there  is  any  one  point,  on  which  the  society  of  Friends' 
have  always  been  united  more  than  another,  (and  their  prac- 
tice is  obvious  to  the  whole  world,)  it  is  this,  that  tiiey  are 
prohibited  both  by  their  principles  and  practice  from  suing 
each  other  at  law.  They  not  otdy  avow  this  principle  of  ac  - 
tion, but  they  have  uniformly  acted  upon  it.  VVe  have  never 
seen  them  come  into  a  court  of  justice,  except  on  extraordi- 
nary occasions.  We  have  Jiever  seen  them  come  into  courts 
of  justice  with  pvoset:  nlions  ngamst  ench  other,  civil  oi-  criminal. 
If  they  have  any  thing  to  complain  of  among  themselves,  iliey 
settle  it  among  themselves.  They  have  always  done  it  before 
But  how  is  it  now?  In  the  midst  of  their  Yearly  Meeting,  at 
a  time  when  their  brethren  were  all  assembled,  some  few  of 
them  hasten  away  from  the  meeting,  rome  up  here,  and  enter 
this  prosecution.    They  also  enter  a  ( ivil  suit,  and  another  cri- 


2j8 


Trial  of  Friends 


minal  prosecution,  before  a  magistrate  of  this  towTi — all  for 
what  occurred  on  Monday,  the  8th  of  September — all  for 
one  single  transaction.  And  these  tnen  who  come  up  to  enter 
prosecutions  against  iheir  brethren,  have  the  matchless  impu- 
dence to  come  befoi  e  your  excellency,  and  claim  to  be  the  only 
true  Friends — the  only  members  having  regard  to  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  society.  They  claim  in  all  their  testimony  and 
acts,  to  be  the  exclusive  Friends,  the  exclusive  orthodox,  and 
genuine  Quakei  s.  It  is  a  singular  circumstance — a  most  sin- 
gular circumstance;  and  it  shows  the  extreme  length  to  which 
hypocrisy  will  carry  men — to  which  a  love  of  dominion  will 
carry  men,  in  persecuting  their  fellows — to  what  evil,  and  ini- 
quity, and  disregard  of  their  own  principles — to  what  turning 
courses  on  their  own  faith,  it  will  carry  them.  When  ope- 
rated on  by  love  of  their  own  aggrandizement,  what  miseral)le 
lust  of  power  and  dominion  takes  possession  of  them. 

This,  then,  is  not  a  prosecution  in  which  the  state  has  any 
interest.  It  is  not  conducted  on  behalf  of  the  slate.  The 
prosecution  is  instituted  and  conducted,  alone,  by  members 
of  the  society  of  Friends,  against  their  brethren — by  one  part 
of  this  religious  community,  against  the  other  part  of  this  re- 
ligious community. 

The  gentleman  has  stated,  in  the  opening  argument,  that 
this  suit  was  not  prosecuted  from  vindictive  motives.  He  felt 
thai  the  reverse  must  appear  evident  to  the  mitid  of  every  man 
who  has  attended  this  prosecution.  And  he  saw,  at  once,  that 
it  was  necessary  for  him  to  disavow,  on  behalf  of  his  clients, 
any  vindictive  motives.  Pray,  what  motives  had  they,  if  they 
had  no  vindictive  motivesf  What  motives  had  they,  who  here 
rush  fi-om  the  Yearly  Meeting  up  to  Stcul)enville,to  commence 
these  three  suits,  two  criminal  and  one  civil  f  ^V'e^e  they  in- 
tent on  the  worship  of  their  God?  Were  their  feelings  those 
which  actuated  Friends  from  the  beginning? — the  feelings  of 
Ijrolherly  love  and  unity?  When  they  started  from  Mount 
Pleasant,  it  must  be  obvious,  their  motives  were  clearly  vin- 
<liclive.  It  cannot  be  concealed  from  the  world — they  can 
hai'dly  conceal  it  from  themselves.  Were  any  attempts  made 
to  settle  it  with  Friends?  were  any  conversations  addressed  to 
Hilles  or  James?  any  message  of  love  sent  them?  any  exertion 
to  settle  it  by  the  appointment  of  committees?  any  measures 
usual  in  the  society?  No,  not  one  of  them.  They  rush  into  a 
court  of  law,  contrary  to  the  established  principles  and  max- 
ims which  they  say  govern  them,  more  strictly  than  those  of 
the  other  parly.  And  if,  then,  ihey  sue  other  members  of  the 
society,  I  say  it  is  false;  and  hypocritical  is  llieir  pretence. 

Having  come  to  this  court  in  this  way,  and  standing  here 
as  we  do,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  inquire  who  these  people 
are?  What  is  the  Yearly  Meeting?  If  we  look  back  to  the  ori- 
gin of  the  socicly,  we  shall  find  that  George  I'ox,  a  man  who 


at  SUubenville,  Ohio. 


259 


rose  at  a  (ime  tlie  most  interesting  in  English  history;  at  a 
time  wlien  tiie  rights  of  men  besjan  to  be  unclerstood.  and  the 
tyrani\yof  the  house  of  Stuart  bej^aii  to  be  cftVctually  resisted — 
a  man  cotemporary  with  Hampden,  Milton,  Sydney,  and  the 
patriots  of  that  day;  he  first  established  the  society,  of  which 
these  parties  are  members.  It  was  when  civil  and  religious 
liberty  began  first  to  be  understood  in  Eticjland,  and  when  men 
first  beyan  to  exercise  their  riy^htsof  self-(^overnment.  Then 
was  the  society  of  Quakers  established  ;  called  so  first  in  de- 
rision. Then  was  the  society  of  Friends  established,  on  prin- 
ciples of  perfect  eciuality.  From  a  small  begiiinini^,  they 
increased  and  extended  over  the  kingdom;  and  it  became  ne- 
cessary, in  the  transaction  of  business,  and  for  the  resistance 
of  tyranny,  to  have  something  of  combined  action ;  and  they 
formed  Monthly,  Quarterly,  and  Yearly  Meetings.  At  first,  the 
Yearly  Meeting  was  of  the  representative  form,  and  the  Quar- 
terlies were  probably  first  attended  by  few,  except  representa- 
tives. But  it  presently  became,  as  described  by  Clarkson,  the 
practice  for  the  brethren  to  go  up  to  London  from  all  parts  of 
the  kingdom,  not  delegates,  but  all  the  brethren  and  sister*! 
who  could  conveniently  attend.  And  this  assembly  became 
the  grand  legislative  and  judicial  power  of  the  society — of  the 
whole  society,  and  by  the  whole  society.  In  accordance  wiih 
this,  we  find  the  discipline  of  Ohio  Y'early  Meeting:  and  in 
accordance  with  this,  you  find  the  practice  of  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting.  Here  are  five  Quarterly  Meetings  composing  this 
Yearly  Meeting.  They  choose  delegates.  The  delegates 
atnount  to  about  fifty,  and  they  go  up  to  Mount  Pleasant  an- 
nually with  communications  froni  the  Quarterly  Meetings; 
and  if  there  are  communications  to  go  back  to  the  Quarterly 
Meetings,  they  take  them  back.  The  parties  communicate 
and  act  for  the  particular  interests  of  the  Quarters  they  repre- 
sent. And  if  any  su!)jects  come  up  in  the  Yearly  INleeting. 
which  more  particularly  relate  to  tlie  Quarter  they  re|)restM\t, 
it  is  their  duty  to  sec  to  that  interest  in  the  Yearly  Meeting. 

But  it  is  said  here,  that  this  Meeting  is  composed  exclu- 
sively of  these  representatives:  and  I  understand  the  counsel 
on  the  other  side,  as  founding  the  whole  prosecution  on  that 
basis: — that  the  meeting  is  composed  exclusively  of  represen- 
tatives— that  they  are  not  merely  the  nucleus  of  the  meeting, 
but  the  entire  Yearly  Meeting.  Now,  it  is  a  matter  of  history 
and  of  common  observation,  and  what  you,  yourself,  must  have 
seen,  that  they  go  up  in  gi-eat  numbers.  Do  they  go  from  curi- 
osity, to  see  the  delegates  consult — to  hear  them  harangue,  and 
determine  the  matters  that  come  before  them?  Or  do  they  go 
up  to  be  efficient  and  active  meml)ers  of  that  meeting?  What 
is  the  fact.-  Take  the  testimony  of  Flisha  Bates,  the  arch- 
bishop of  this  orthodox  party.     When  the  question  is  put  to 


Ttinl  of  Friends 


lum,  have  the  delegates  any  more  voice  than  any  other  mem- 
bers? He  tells  yon  they  have  not;  at\d  so  fays  every  one  of  the 
witnesses.  They  ail  come  to  the  same  point.  They  tell 
you,  il  is  the  duty  of  delegates  to  bring  up  communicatioTis 
from  the  different  Quarters,  and  to  take  back  cominutiications: 
that,  by  custom  and  discipline,  thoy  nominate  the  clerk,  yet 
they  have  no  power  in  the  meeting  more  than  any  other  mem- 
bers: that  there  is  not  any  man,  or  numlier  of  men,  either 
ministers  or  representatives,  who  have  any  authority,  power, 
or  weight,  any  further  than  that  of  personal  character,  the  same 
as  we  find  in  every  other  asseml)lage  of  men.  For  there  is  no 
assemblage  where  there  is  not  some  difference,  as  in  that  so- 
ciety ;  no  assemblage  where  a  man  of  exemplary  conduct,  and 
superior  wisdom  and  experience,  known  and  admitted  by  all, 
would  not  have  greater  weight  than  his  brethren.  There  is 
no  other  difference  in  this  society,  pointed  out  l)y  the  testimo- 
ny, and  710  other  than  this  can  exist,  by  their  constitution  and 
principles.  William  Penn,  in  his  account  of  the  Rise  and 
Progress  of  the  People  called  Quakers,  speaking  of  their 
Yearly  Meetings,  says: 

"  At  these  meetinfjs  any  of  the  members  of  the  churches  may  come,  if 
they  please,  and  speak  their  minds  freelv,  in  the  fear  of  God,  to  any  mat- 
ter: But  the  mind  of  each  Quarterly  Meeting,  therein  represented,  is 
chiefly  understood,  as  to  particular  cases,  in  the  sense  delivered  by  the  per- 
sons deputed,  or  chosen  for  that  service,  by  the  said  meeting." — (p.  ~71, 
fol.  vol. ) 

Here  is  the  description  given  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  its 
first  constitution.  The  representatives  were  to  be  specially 
heard,  as  it  related  to  the  business  of  the  Quarterly  Meetings. 
But  the  members  all  met,  and  composed  the  legislative  and 
judicial  power  of  the  society. 

Thei  e  is  another  fact — there  is  no  authority  superior  to  this 
Yearly  Meeting.  The  whole  evidence  has  established  that 
fact  beyond  controversy.  It  is  not  accountable  to  any  other 
Yearly  Meeting  or  assemblage  of  men  on  earth.  As  to  pro- 
ceedings in  its  own  affairs,  it  is  supreme  and  absolute.  And 
a  Yearly  Meeting — this  Yearly  Meeting,  is  composed  of  the 
whole  body  of  Friends,  within  its  limits,  who  choose  to  as- 
semble— the  whole  number,  whether  born,  or  admitted  mem- 
bers of  the  society,  unless  they  are  disowned  or  under  dealing. 
Thei-e  is  no  other  exception  in  the  discipline; — there  is  no 
other  exception  in  their  practice.  There  is  no  one  set  of  these 
people,  who  have  any  right  or  authority  over  others,  unless 
they  hold  it  by  usurpation.  The  delegates  themselves  have 
no  authority  or  control  over  the  Yearly  Meeting.  Their  opi- 
nion is  never  taken  against  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing; but  they  are  there,  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  as  members  of 
the  whole  body,  with  no  more  authority  than  other  members, 


cU  Sleubenvilkf  Ohio. 


261 


and  are  distinguished  only  as  messengers  from  the  Quarterly 
Meetings,  through  whom  the  Quarters  communicate,  more 
directly,  to  this  great  body,  and  this  body  communicates 
back  to  the  Quarters. 

It  does  appear  to  me,  that,  to  suppose  the  fifty  representa- 
tives from  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  attending  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, can  control  in  any  way  or  instance  the  twelve  or  fifteen 
hundred  members,  who  are  there  assembled,  is  altogether  a 
gratuitous  supposition;  that  it  has  no  foundation  whatever  in 
ancient  practice,  or  in  modern  practice.  But,  if  your  honour 
please,  if  it  has  been  otherwise  in  England,  and  you  are  satis- 
fied that,  in  England,  it  is  a  representative  body  exclusively, 
and  that  those  who  attend,  other  than  representatives,  have 
no  authority,  it  is  not  so  at  Mount  Pleasant.  And  whatever 
may  have  been  the  practice  of  any  other  Yearly  Meeting  in 
existence,  that  practice  cannot  rule  or  control  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Ohio; — because  this  fact  is  undeniable  and  indis- 
putable, that  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  when  assembled,  make 
their  own  rules  and  regulations.  They  have  made  a  book  of 
Discipline,  and  can  abrogate  it  at  their  pleasure.  It  is  that 
power,  and  that  alone,  which  can  make  and  change  the  rules 
of  discipline.  They  are  not  governed  by  any  other  power  on 
earth; — they  are  neither  amenable  nor  accountable  to  any  body 
of  men  existing. — Clarkaon,  vol.  1,  page  210.  [See  page  225 
of  this  work.] 

The  same  course  of  proceeding  is  had  in  all  their  meetings. 
You  see  then,  that  in  this  Yearly  Meeting,  or  in  the  meetings 
of  the  society  of  Friends,  there  is  not,  in  their  constitution,  , 
any  thing  like  an  aristocracy  in  civil  affairs.  But  it  is  a  most 
perfect  and  pure  democracy.  Every  member,  rich  or  pooi- — 
no  matter  whether  he  has  the  purse  of  Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  or 
whether  he  is  receiving  charitable  contributions  from  him  and 
other  members — he  stands  upon  the  same  ground  of  equality. 
He  has  a  right  to  make  amotion,  and  to  be  heard;  he  may  op- 
pose any  proposition,  and  be  heardf  as  much  as  any  other 
member  in  the  meeting;  and  when  a  proposition  is  made  by 
any  one  member,  it  must  be  discussed  and  settled,  before  any 
other  business  can  be  proceeded  in:  and  any  attempt  to  pro- 
ceed, is  disorderly,  and  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  society. 
The  position  is  established  clearly  by  Clarkson,  and  by  all 
the  testimony  in  the  case,  that  such  are  the  rights  of  indivi- 
dual members,  and  such  the  usual  and  orderly  course  of  pro- 
ceeding in  this  society. 

Now,  I  will  ask,  whether,  from  the  evidence,  it  is  not  clear 
and  indisputable,  that  these  defendants  had  a  right  in  that 
meeting?  Whether  it  is  not  clear  and  indisputable,  that  they 
were  members  of  that  meeting?  First,  as  to  David  Hilles. 
He  is  a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends.    He  was  a  delegate 


262 


Triitl  of  Fyitnds 


from  Redstone  Quarterly  Meeting- — the  oldest  Quarter  in  this 
Yearly  Meeting — the  one  from  which  all  the  others  have 
sprung.  He  came  there  with  reports  from  Redstone  Quarter- 
ly Meeting.  He  was  the  clerk  of  that  meeting,  and  appeared 
in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  according  to  their  own  principles, 
with  the  most  perfect  right  of  membership.  I  do  not  under- 
stand this  to  be  disputed. 

How  was  it  with  Isaac  James?  He  was  a  member  of  Con- 
cord Monthly  Meeting.  He  has  been  disowned  by  Short 
Creek  Monthly  Meeting.  But,  how  disowned?  Short  Creek 
Quarterly  Meeting,  to  which  Concord  Monthly  Meeting  be- 
longs, has  laid  down  Concord  meeting,  and  attached  its  mem- 
bers to  Short  Creek  Montiily  Meeting;  and  Short  Creek,  in 
this  way  claiming  jurisdiction  over  the  members  of  Concord, 
has  disowned  James.  The  question  here  arises,  and  must  be 
decided,  whether  the  Quarterly  Meeting  could  have  laid  down 
that  Monthly  Meeting.  It  is  clear  that  Concord  Monthly 
Meeting  never  assented  to  this.  They  never  applied  to  the 
Quarterly  Meeting  to  do  it.  It  never  was  done  by  consent  of 
{he  Meeting  at  Concord,  or  by  that  of  many  members  com- 
posing the  Quarter.  But  it  has  been  done  by  an  unwarrantable 
usurpation  of  power  and  authority — by  a  gross  act  of  tyranny 
in  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  without  the  consent  and  concur- 
rence of  the  Monthly  Meeting. 

Now,  if  I  have  taken  a  correct  view  of  the  principles  of  this 
society — of  the  principles  on  which  their  laws  are  founded — 
nothing  like  arbitrary  power  is  admitted  in  the  society;  no 
question  in  any  of  their  meetings  can  be  carried  in  that  way. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  compulsion — there  is  no  authority 
of  one  meeting  over  another.  It  may  be  said  that  the  Yearly 
Meeting,  being  the  supreme  legislative  and  judicial  power, 
would  have  authority  in  laying  down  a  Monthly  Meeting.  But 
admitting,  that  as  the  supreme  power  of  the  society,  they 
would  have  this  right  and  authority,  we  must  at  once  perceive 
the  very  great  difference.  In  this  Yearly  Meeting  they  would 
be  all  together,  and  acting  in  unity  with  their  brethren  upon 
the  interests  of  the  whole  society,  and,  if  found  necessary,  this 
supreme  authority  might  do  this  act.  But  there  is  no  such 
authority  in  the  subordinate  meetings; — no  such  authority  in 
the  Quarterly  over  the  Monthly  Meeting.  Because  a  Quar- 
terly Meeting  may  be  composed  of  two  Monthly  Meetings, 
and  if  it  can  be  exercised  by  a  Quarterly,  in  laying  down  a 
Monthly  Meeting,  then  one  Monthly  Meeting  may  lay  down 
another,  and  attach  the  members  to  itself,  and  compel  them 
to  attend  at  any  distance,  thus  perpetrating  the  most  ridiculous 
act  of  tyranny  imaginable,  without  consulting  the  other  meet- 
ing. Such  an  act  of  tyranny  would  be  inconsistent  with  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  society.    Friends  never  allow  a 


at  Steubenville,  Okto. 


26S 


question  to  pass,  e  -lii  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  if  there  be  much 
opposition.  In  a  Monthly  or  Quarterly  Meeting,  when  a  mo- 
tion is  made  and  discussed,  it  is  not  decided  by  a  majority, 
but  there  must  be  what  they  emphatically  call  a  unity.  When 
a  measure  is  proposed,  they  never  take  a  vote,  nor  count  num- 
bers. There  must  be  a  general  unity  in  sentiment,  in  order 
to  have  a  proposition  adopted  as  the  act  of  the  society.  Well; 
how  will  this  apply  to  laying  down  a  Monthly  Meeting  by  a 
Quarterly,  or,  if  you  please,  one  Monthly  by  another?  It  is  in 
direct  contravention  to  their  principles;  it  is  directly  hostile 
to  them.  It  goes  to  establish  the  principle,  that  one  part  may 
disown  and  lay  down  the  other,  without  consulting  them  about 
it.  It  is  therefore  a  principle  altogether  inconsistent,  and  in- 
admissible. Here  Mr.  Tappan  referred  to  the  book  of  Disci- 
pline, pages  28,  29.    [See  pages  234  &  5  of  this  work.] 

The  court  will  see,  that  this  arrangement  is  to  be  wholly 
governed  by  the  view  of  what  will  be  most  likely  to  promote 
the  convenience  of  those  who  compose  the  meeting,  and  the 
society  in  general. 

Now,  the  way  in  which  a  Monthly  Meeting  can  be  set  up, 
is  evidently  by  application  from  those  members  of  the  society, 
who  are  inconveniently  situated  to  attend  any  established 
Monthly  Meeting.  If  it  will  conduce  to  the  convenience  of 
such  individuals  to  form  a  new  Monthly  Meeting,  they  have  a 
right  to  apply  to  be  set  up;  and  if  the  Quarterly  Meeting  con- 
cur, they  will  be  established  as  a  new  Monthly  Meeting.  And 
in  no  other  way  can  they  be  established.  It  is  not  in  the 
power  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  to  say,  to  a  part  of  the  society 
who  are  accustomed  to  associate  together,  you  shall  divide; 
you  shall  form  two  Monthly  Meetings;  one  part  shall  meet 
here,  and  another  part  there.  They  have  no  such  authority 
given  to  them,  in  practice  or  in  discipline.  But  it  is  to  be 
exercised,  on  application,  and  for  the  convenience  and  benefit 
of  the  society.  When  it  suits  their  convenience,  the  Quar- 
terly, on  application  from  those  members,  forms  a  new  meet- 
ing. But  there  is  not  a  hint,  in  any  of  their  books,  or  in  the 
Discipline,  that  a  Quarterly  Meeting  can  divide,  and  make  two 
out  of  one,  without  application,  or  regard  to  the  convenience 
of  the  parties. 

The  same  principle  applies  in  laying  down.  If,  from  the 
discretion  of  the  members,  they  are  found  to  be  too  few  to 
continue  a  Monthly  Meeting;  or,  if  they  have  moved  nearer 
to  another,  so  that  it  would  conduce  to  the  convenience  and 
benefit  of  the  society  to  lay  down  the  Monthly  Meeting — if  it 
be  thought  not  proper  longer  to  hold  a  meeting  in  that  place, 
and  this  being  represented  to  the  Quarter,  they  consent  to  it, 
the  Monthly  Meeting  disposes  of  its  property,  and  the  mem- 
bers are  attached  to  another  meeting.    But  there  is  not  to  be 


264 


Trial  of  Friends 


any  force  nor  coercion  in  this  society,  in  any  part  of  it.  But 
they  are  to  proceed  on  principles  of  brotherly  love  and  unity, 
arranging  their  affairs  in  a  friendly  manner,  so  as  to  conduce 
to  the  convenience  and  interest  of  individuals  and  the  whole 
society.  They  are  not  to  breed  ill-will  and  contention,  but  to 
promote  brotherly  love  and  unity. 

Beside,  how  careful  are  they  to  provide  for  appeals,  where 
individuals  are  aggrieved.  In  all  cases,  individuals  have  the 
right  of  appeal,  from  the  Monthly  to  the  Quarterly,  and  from 
the  Quarterly  to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  But  would  they  have 
given  such  enormous  power  to  the  Quarterly,  and  provide  no 
appeal  to  the  Yearly.**  And  yet  there  is  no  appeal.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  Discipline,  to  give  the  Monthly  Meeting  the 
right  of  appeal.  If  the  Quarterly  Meeting  use  this  power,  it 
is  irrevocable — final  and  conclusive.  What  then  becomes  of 
the  property  of  the  Monthly  Meeting?  The  meeting  in  ques- 
tion, have  a  burying  ground;  they  have  vested  civil  rights. 
Can  the  Quarterly,  by  laying  down  and  attaching  this  Monthly 
Meeting  to  Short  Creek,  attach  the  property?  Can  they  trans- 
fer the  real  estate  of  Concord  Monthly  Meeting,  to  persons 
composing  Short  Creek  Monthly  Meeting?  They  can  do  no 
such  thing.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  from  every  view,  whe- 
ther we  refer  to  principle  or  practice;  whether  we  are  governed 
by  their  practice,  or  the  facts  of  their  situation,  as  owners  of 
real  estate,  a  Monthly  Meeting  cannot  be  laid  down  and  dis- 
solved, but  by  their  own  consent  and  approbation.  I  think  it 
is,  then,  clear  and  indisputable,  that  the  laying  down  of  Con- 
cord Monthly  Meeting,  was  an  act  of  pure  tyranny,  and  for 
all  the  purposes  of  this  society,  was  nugatory.  The  Quarterly 
and  Monthly  Meetings  of  Short  Creek,  proceeded  beyond  their 
authority  and  power;  and  what  they  did,  is  a  nullity.  And 
no  one  member  is  bound  to  respect,  or  pay  any  regard  to  that 
act.  And  I  would  not  ask  your  honour,  in  a  complaint  of  this 
kind,  to  determine  a  question  of  this  sort,  under  the  discipline 
of  this  society,  if  it  were  not  absolutely  necessary,  in  my  view, 
to  determine  it — if  it  were  not  necessary  to  take  up  and  ex- 
amine the  power  of  a  Quarterly  Meeting,  to  lay  down  a 
Monthly  Meeting,  in  order  to  determine,  whether  James  was 
a  member  of  that  Monthly  Meeting  or  not.  If  the  Quarterly 
Meeting  of  Short  Creek  could  not  lay  down  Concord,  then  the 
Monthly  Meeting  of  Short  Creek  had  no  jurisdiction  over 
James.  They  might  as  well  disown  me  as  James.  They 
have  as  much  right  over  one  as  the  other.  For  no  man  can 
be  disowned,  but  by  the  Monthly  Meeting  to  which  he  belongs. 
And  I  do  not  myself  see,  how  a  man  can  be  made  to  belong  to 
any  religious  society,  without  his  consent — take  it  among 
Friends,  or  any  other  religious  society.  Is  it  not,  in  this 
country,  a  matter  of  personal  consent  and  choice,  whether  you 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


265 


•will  belong  to  a  society  of  Friends,  Baptists,  Presbyterians, 
or  any  other  society?  Are  you  going  to  force  men  to  become 
members  of  a  religious  society,  or  community,  to  which  they 
do  not  voluntarily  attach  themselves? 

It  is  said,  that  from  this  decision  of  the  Short  Creek 
Monthly  Meeting,  James  had  a  right  to  appeal.  Appeal! — 
to  whom?  Not  to  his  own  Monthly  Meeting  where  he  be- 
longs !  But  he  had  a  right  to  appeal  to  his  tyrants — to  those  who 
had  assumed  an  illegal  power  over  him — who  had  undertaken 
to  disown  him  without  authority,  and  contrary  to  the  disci- 
pline and  principles  of  the  society.  He  must  have  become  a 
voluntary  member  of  that  meeting,  before  they  could  have 
authority  over  him — before  they  could  have  it  in  their  power 
to  hear  a  complaint  against  him,  or  in  their  power  to  disown 
him.  Their  disowning  him  was  a  nugatory  act;  and  one  to 
which  he,  as  a  member  of  this  free  commonwealth,  and  as  a 
member  of  the  society  of  Friends,  is  not  bound  to  pay  any  re- 
gard. 

James  then  was  a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends.  I  go 
here,  further  than  it  is  necessary  to  go,  to  establish  his  right 
to  be  at  that  Yearly  Meeting.  If  he  believed,  and  if  a  num- 
ber of  members  of  the  society  believed,  that  the  laying  down 
of  this  Monthly  Meeting  was  an  irregular  act,  and  nugatory; 
then  it  was  improper  and  unavailable,  to  attempt  to  exclude 
them  from  the  Yearly  Meeting.  For  they  had  a  right  to  at- 
tend, and  to  lay  this  suljject  before  the  Yearly  Meeting  for 
their  decision.  They  had  no  regular  mode  of  appeal,  pro- 
vided in  the  Discipline,  from  the  Quarter  laying  them  down. 
And  if  there  was  no  mode  pointed  out  in  the  Discipline,  to 
revise  the  transaction  in  the  superior  tribunal,  it  was  a  sub- 
ject which  interested  the  whole  society  deeply,  and  one  which 
they  had  an  undoubted  right  to  bring  before  the  supreme 
legislative  and  judicial  authority  of  the  society.  They  had  a 
right  to  appear  there  for  that  purpose,  on  the  day  of  the 
meeting  for  discipline,  to  have  the  question  l)rought  up,  dis- 
cussed, and  settled. 

When  this  Yearly  Meeting  thus  assembled,  on  the  morning 
of  the  8th  of  September,  it  was  composed  of  all  those  mem- 
bers of  the  society  who  had  not  been  disowned,  and  who  were 
not  under  dealing  according  to  the  regular  discipline  of  the 
society.  If  there  were  any  who  had  been  disowned  irregularly, 
or  who  were  under  dealing  for  not  obeying  the  mandate  of  the 
Quarterly  Meeting,  illegally  made,  they  had  a  right  to  be 
there,  to  lay  the  subject  of  complaint  before  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing. This  meeting  was  composed,  I  say,  of  those  not  dis- 
owned, and  those  who  had  not  been  dealt  with  :  and  secondly, 
of  those  who  had  been  illegally  dealt  with.  And  when  so  met, 
may  it  please  your  honour, — when  so  assembled,  on  the  8th 
of  September,  they  composed  but  one  society.    There  might 


266 


Trial  of  Frieitils 


have  been  division  in  sentiment;  some  might  have  held  to  one 
opinion  in  matters  of  faith,  and  some  to  another.  But  the  so- 
ciety met  as  one  society,  and  as  a  body,  possessing  in  them- 
selves, the  whole  legislative  and  judicial  power  within  the 
limits  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  And,  according  to  the  vievv 
given  by  Clarkson,  each  member  had  a  right  to  propose,  for 
discussion,  any  thing  which  he  thought  proper  to  bring  for- 
ward ;  and  when  proposed,  it  was  not  in  order,  for  any  other 
matter  to  be  taken  up,  till  that  was  settled. 

This  being  the  situation  of  the  meeting — tlie  meeting  being 
quiet,  a  member  of  the  meeting,  unexceptionable  in  character, 
against  whom  no  complaint  had  been  made,  one  in  as  good 
standing  as  any  member  of  the  society,  of  the  orthodox  party 
at  least,  arose  and  made  a  motion  to  the  meeting.  He  proposed 
that  the  old  clerk  be  removed,  and  that  a  new  clerk  should  be 
appointed  for  the  day.  When  this  motion  was  made  to  the 
meeting,  the  meeting  proceeded  to  act  in  their  usual  manner. 
They  proceeded  to  deliver  their  sense  in  the  usual  manner. 
Something  has  been  said  of  their  speaking  in  quick  succes- 
sion, and  some  individuals  two  or  three  times  over;  and  of 
some  confusion  and  clamour  in  acceding  to  this  proposition. 
But  what  is  this,  in  a  large  meeting  house,  in  which  there  is 
an  assemblage  of  more  than  a  thousand  people.-*  When  a  pro- 
position is  made  to  them,  and  it  is  stated  that  the  clerks  have 
incapacitated  themselves  for  doing  the  business  of  the  meet- 
ing acceptably — when  a  proposition  is  made,  that  the  clerks 
be  displaced;  in  taking  the  question,  in  the  way  they  did,  in  so 
large  a  crowd  or  meeting,  there  would  necessarily  be  some 
confusion,  whether  you  take  the  question  by  ayes  and  noes,  or 
as  Friends  take  it.  In  expressing  their  opinions,  there  would 
be  necessarily  more  or  less  confusion ;  and  the  confusion  would 
generally  be  in  proportion  to  the  excessive  numbers  of  the 
meeting. 

Was  there  any  thing  unusual  in  this?  and  if  so,  what  has  it 
to  do  with  the  question  before  the  court?  The  manner  in 
which  they  chose  to  transact  their  business,  is  not  to  be  called 
in  question  here.  If  they  indecorously  express  their  concur- 
rence, whether  orthodox  or  not, — which  it  is  not  very  clear 
they  did, — if  they  did  do  this — if  there  were  some  members, 
who  were  not  governed  by  the  same  principles  which  lawyers 
would  be  governed  by,  and  were  noisy  in  expressing  their  ap- 
probation of  this  measure,  it  does  Rot  at  all  affect  this  question. 
The  proposition  was  before  this  meeting.  It  was  made  by  a 
member  who  had  a  right  to  make  it:  and  it  niust  first  be  dis- 
posed of  before  another  could  be  made.  The  proposition  was 
understood,  Iiy  the  meeting,  to  be  disposed  of.  It  is  stated  that 
there  was  a  great  concurrence.  Why,  then,  did  not  Ladd,  and 
those  with  whom  he  acted,  suppoi  t  it?   Why  not  express  their 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


267 


unity  with  it?  He  tells  you  he  did  not  think  it  worth  observ- 
ing. He  was  so  much  more  elevated  in  his  station  than  Mr. 
French,  that  he  did  not  think  the  proposition  from  French 
worth  notice.  This  is  a  comfortable  degree  of  spiritual  pride: 
a  very  comfortable  degree  of  it! 

But  when  you  come  to  look  at  Clarkson  and  other  writers, 
you  find  that,if  a  man,  who  is  a  pauper, subsisting  on  the  charity 
of  the  meeting,  dependant  on  daily  alms  for  a  livelihood,  had 
made  the  proposition,  it  should  have  been  attended  to,  heard, 
and  decided,  before  they  could  proceed,  according  to  their 
principles  and  rules,  to  other  business.  And  it  did  not  be- 
come Mr.  Ladd,  or  any  other  man  in  that  meeting,  to  say  he 
did  not  think  it  worth  regarding.  The  discipline  and  rules  do 
not  give  Mr.  Ladd  power  and  right  to  judge  the  purity  of  mo- 
tives. They  give  no  man  authority,  who  feels  more  sancti- 
fied than  his  brethren,  to  turn  up  his  nose  to  a  proposition, 
and  say  it  is  not  to  be  regarded.  The  proposition  was  made 
and  agreed  to.  If  the  orthodox  felt  hostility  to  this  pro- 
position, they  did  not  express  it.  The  question  was  carried, 
clearly  and  indisputably.  The  former  clerks  were  functus 
officio.  They  had  nothing  more  to  say  in  that  meeting,  except 
as  members  at  large.  A  proposition  is  made,  then,  to  ap- 
point another  clerk.  That  is  acceded  to.  Whether  Taylor 
began  before  or  after,  I  hold  to  be  immaterial.  It  is  clear  and 
indisputable,  that  when  a  proposition  is  made,  it  must  be  acted 
on,  before  it  is  proper  to  bring  forward  any  other  business. 
And  Mr.  Taylor,  in  reading,  in  this  instance,  whether  at  the 
instance  of  Ladd  or  Bates — I  care  not  at  whose  instance  he 
did  it— the  reading  was  both  impudent  and  disorderly.  It  is 
a  great  piece  of  impudence  for  any  man,  in  any  assembly,  to 
set  up  his  voice  in  opposition  to  the  voice  of  the  assembled 
multitude.  When  the  proposition  was  before  that  meeting, 
Taylor  undertook  to  interrupt  the  discussion  and  decision  of 
the  question  which  was  raised. 

And  here,  may  it  please  your  honour,  if  you  are  seeking 
for  the  cause  of  disturbance  in  this  meeting,  you  have  it. 
When  a  proposition  is  laid  before  the  meeting,  and  the  meet- 
ing are  acting  upon  it,  the  clerk  proceeds  to  read,  and  his  as- 
sistant to  call,  in  a  stentorian  voice,  the  names  of  the  delegates; 
you  want  no  proof  that  this  would  produce  confusion.  It  shows 
where  the  confusion  originated.  Clarkson  shows  you,  that  it 
originated  in  direct  contravention  to  the  rules  of  the  socie- 
ty;— in  direct  hostility  to  the  usual  order  and  method  of  con- 
ducting business. 

I  know  not  how  this  view  of  the  subject  can  be  avoided.  I 
know  not  how  this  view  of  the  subject  can  at  all  be  questioned. 
The  proposition  which  the  gentleman  has  taken,  is  false  and 
untenable,  though  unquestionably  the  only  base  on  which  he 


268 


Trial  of  Friends 


can  rest  his  claim  at  all,  as  to  the  power  and  authority  of  his 
clients;  and  that  is,  that  these  men,  who  call  themselves  or- 
thodox, who  consider  themselves  the  only  true  church,  who 
consider  themselves  as  saints  par  excellence,  are  the  real  socie- 
ty of  Friends;  and  that  all  the  rest  of  this  rabblement,  who 
assembled  there,  though  formerly  members  of  unquestionable 
character,  morals,  and  piety,  but  who  did  not  come  up  to  their 
orthodox  standard  of  piety,  were  not  to  be  regarded  in  the 
meeting.  On  no  other  principle  can  they  apologize  for  this 
breach  of  decorum — this  disorderly  measure,  of  going  on  with 
opening  the  meeting,  when  a  proposition  was  under  considera- 
tion. 

For  let  them  have  been  a  majority  or  a  minority,  numerous 
or  few,  still  the  question  that  came  before  the  meeting,  was 
brought  forward  by  a  regular  member  of  that  meeting.  It  was 
a  question  before  the  meeting  for  the  discussion  and  decision 
of  the  meeting.  And  for  any  member  to  interpose  while  it  was 
so  before  the  meeting,  unsettled  and  undetermined,  was  clearly 
disorderly.  This  is  the  opinion  of  all  the  witnesses,  except 
Mr.  I^add  and  a  few  others.  Thus  we  see  the  conduct  of  the 
persons  who  are  charged  here  with  disturbing  the  meeting. 
They  were  members  of  the  meeting.  They  voted  on  this  ques- 
tion. They  were  there  with  others.  The  meeting  determined 
the  question;  and  it  was  decided  that  the  clerk  should  cease  to 
act.  The  nomination  was  made,  and  another  clerk  was  chosen 
in  his  place.  They  had  a  right  then,  to  place  the  clerk  in  the 
chair.  The  voice  of  the  meeting  had  been  expressed:  the  old 
clerk  displaced:  the  new  clerk  elected:  and  the  silence  of  the 
orthodox  had  given  consent,  agreeably  to  the  usage  of  the 
meeting.  If  they  dissented,  they  were  bound  to  express  it  in 
the  usual  manner.  But  they  did  not.  When  a  person  is 
silent,  he  is  considered  as  acquiescing. 

No  one  man  spoke  against  the  displacing  of  the  old  clerk, 
or  the  appointing  of  Hilles.  It  was  suggested  by  one  or  two, 
"  we  have  a  clerk;"  but  no  other  word  was  objected.  The 
meeting  had  created  a  vacancy,  and  it  was  then  right  for  Hil- 
les to  take  his  seat.  And  to  prevent  or  interrupt  his  going  to 
the  table,  was  an  interruption  of  the  meeting,  by  whomsoever 
it  was  done.  His  going  to  take  his  seat,  was  in  perfect  order 
and  regularity. 

Well,  when  this  is  done,  is  there  any  attempt  here,  to  tyran- 
nize over  the  orthodox,  or  to  force  them  into  measures  contrary 
to  their  will?  Or  to  carry  measures  against  their  will,  unless 
first  fairly  proposed  in  open  meeting,  and  concurred  in  by  the 
united  voice  of  the  meeting?  Was  there  any  confusion  raised? 
When  this  opposition  arose,  seeing  the  hostility,  confusion  and 
opposition,  a  Friend  proposes  to  make  an  amicable  adjustment. 
He  proposes  to  the  orthodox,  and  to  those  with  whom  he  is 


.1 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


269 


acting,  to  come  to  an  amicable  asjreemenl.  to  divide  the  house 
or  the  time,  so  that  there  should  be  no  collision  between  them. 
It  is  the  proposition  of  peace.  But  it  is  repelled  by  these 
saints  with  indignity.  No.  They  will  do  no  such  thing.  But 
by  the  direction  of  the  lord  of  the  society,  they  call  over  the 
names  of  the  representatives,  and  take  their  sense  upon  an  ad- 
journment, a  thing  without  precedent  in  the  society.  They  did 
what  no  man  ever  thought  could  be  done — they  adjourned 
themselves.  But  what  did  the  others  do.''  Did  they  disturb 
them?  No.  They  sat  quietly,  and  saw  them  transact  their 
business.  They  did  not  interrupt  them.  There  was  no  inter- 
ruption to  their  calling  over  their  delegates  and  marching  off, 
in  any  order  they  chose. 

And  when,  on  the  next  day,  they  came  and  demanded  exclu- 
sive possession  of  the  house,  there  was  no  attempt  to  keep  ex- 
clusive possession.  The  doors  were  opened,  and  no  guards 
were  placed.  They  were  told  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  was 
sitting,  and  that  they  had  right  and  liberty  to  come  in.  If  they 
knew  they  had  a  majority,  they  had  right  and  power  to  come 
in,  and  form  component  parts  of  the  meeting.  If  they  did  not 
like  Hilles,  their  remedy  was  plain.  They  might  liave  moved 
to  displace  him  for  an  irregularity.  They  might  have  dis- 
placed him,  by  a  majority  of  the  voices  of  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
There  was  nothing  that  could  prevent. 

We  see  no  claim  to  set  up,  by  these  men  for  whom  I  appear, 
over  their  fellows — no  claim  but  their  equal  and  undoubted 
rights  in  the  society.  They  never  wished  to  control  their 
brethren,  nor  do  they  now  wish  to  control  their  brethren.  How 
is  it  with  the  other  side?  How  is  it  with  the  orthodox?  In  the 
first  place,  you  find,  that  a  committee  of  the  Meeting  for  Suffer- 
ings bring  forward  an  epistle  of  advice  from  Indiana  Yearly 
Meeting.  They  consider  on  it,  in  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings, 
and  pass  some  resolutions:  then  recommending  it  to  the  Quar- 
terly and  Monthly  Meetings,  choose  committees,  withLadd  at 
their  head,  who  go  round  to  the  Monthly  Meetings  to  cram 
it  down  them:  thus  disowning  in  that  epistle  at  one  blow  fifty 
thousand  members — a  great  majority  of  the  society.  And  the 
committee  for  sufferings,  without  any  authority  derived  from 
any  source,  appoint  sub-committees  to  go  round  and  insist  on 
this  being  received — not  as  disciplinei  they  did  not  attempt 
to  force  it  upon  them  as  discipline;  but  it  must  be  received  as 
advice,  and  acted  upon.  When  it  comes  to  the  Monthly  Meet- 
ing, it  is  opened  and  read  there,  and  is  recommended  to  the 
members.  It  gives  what  it  calls  extracts  from  the  Berean,  and 
extracts  from  the  sermons  of  Elias  Hicks;  and  one  thing  and 
another  as  a  representation  of  the  opinions  and  doctrines  which 
they  pretend  to  condemn,  in  all  those  that  receive  them,  and 
exclude  them  from  the  society.  When  the  Monthly  Meeting 
34 


270 


Trial  of  Friends 


examine  this,  they  find  that  in  the  extracts  from  the  Berean, 
there  is  a  sentence  made  up  by  taking  parts  of  paragraphs  from 
three  or  four  different  pages — patching  them  up,  so  as  to  give 
neither  the  sense  of  the  writer  of  the  Berean,  nor  the  sense  of 
Elias  Hicks,  but  their  own  construction  and  interpretation.  If 
your  honour  will  observe,  it  will  be  found  that  it  is  throughout 
patched  up  in  that  way:  containing  not  a  true  representation 
of  the  sentiments  of  the  Berean  or  of  Elias  Hicks,  but  such 
kind  of  garbage  as  they  think  fit  food  for  the  minds  of  the  or- 
thodox, with  a  false  new-fangled  system  of  the  sentiments  that 
they  attempt  to  combat.  So  that  many  members  of  the  Month- 
ly Meeting  could  not  conscientiously  approve  of  itj  and  they 
rejected  it;  and  some,  perhaps,  though  disapproving,  submis- 
sively receive  it.  Here  originates  the  whole  of  the  quarrel. 
Here  originates  the  disturbance  in  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  and 
among  the  Friends  composing  the  same  Monthly  Mesting, 
some  will,  and  some  will  not  receive  the  testimony.  Monthly 
Meetings  are  then  laid  down.  They  laid  down  Concord,  and 
made  an  attempt  at  Plainfield;  but  Plainfield  was  too  stubborn, 
and  the  meeting  still  stands  in  spite  of  their  tyranny. 

Now,  may  it  please  your  honour,  the  members  of  this  so- 
ciety had  a  right  to  judge  of  this  Indiana  Yearly  Meeting  testi- 
mony: because  Indiana  Yearly  Meeting  had  no  control  over 
the  members  of  this  society.  It  may  have  over  its  own  mem- 
bers, to  make  them  believe  that  nine-tenths  of  the  society  have 
departed  from  the  ancient  principles  of  Friends,  and  that  they 
are  more  enlightened  than  all  the  world  upon  this  subject. 
They  may  say,  you  shall  believe  this,  and  exclude  all  who  will 
not:  you  shall  believe  our  garbage,  as  a  true  statement  of  the 
sentiments  of  the  Berean  and  Elias  Hicks.  Now  they  may 
impose  all  this  upon  their  own  society;  but  when  they  come 
into  the  state  of  Ohio,  to  cram  this  down  the  necks  of  the  peo- 
ple here,  I  do  trust,  the  people  have  a  right  to  look  at  it,  and 
see  whether  it  is  proper  aliment  for  them  or  not,  and  receive 
or  reject  it,  as  they  think  proper.  Pray,  where  did  the  Meet- 
ing for  Sufferings  get  the  right  to  pick  up  epistles  from  Indi- 
ana or  Dublin,  or  any  where  else,  and  say  you  shall  swallow 
this  for  gospel;  and  send  Ladd  &nd  others  to  cram  it  down 
their  throats,  whether  or  no?  I  can  see  no  authority  for  this. 
In  a  society  where  the  poor  man  has  as  much  authority  as  the 
rich,  I  say  there  is  no  such  power.  It  appears  to  me  to  be  a 
pure  and  simple  act  of  tyranny  and  oppression,  as  the  first  step 
made  by  the  orthodox  to  obtain  exclusive  dominion  over  their 
brethren. 

This  was  the  pretence  for  laying  down  Concord  Monthly 
Meeting.  They  would  not  receive  the  epistle.  They  had  ex- 
amined for  themselves,  and  had  formed  an  opinion  that  it  was 
not  binding  on  them.    They  imagined  that  the  Meeting  for 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


271 


Sufferings  had  not  the  authority  over  them,  and  they  did  not 
bow  to  the  idol  erected  by  Ladd  and  his  Indiana  Friends — to 
the  image  of  clay  and  brass.  They  rejected  it,  and  therefore 
they  were  laid  down.  They  were  not  asked,  whether  they 
would  consent  to  be  attached  to  another  meeting,  but,  by  com- 
pulsion, were  declared  out  of  existence,  and  annihilated,  as  a 
Monthly  Meeting.  And  for  what?  For  rejecting  the  Indiana 
epistle.    No  other  reason  under  heaven. 

Well,  the  next  proceeding  is,  you  find  them  assembling  at 
Mount  Pleasant  from  Dublin,  from  Rhode  Island,  from  Caro- 
lina, and  every  where  else,  where  they  could  get  delegates. 
You  find  all  these  attending  in  numbers  that  never  attended 
the  Yearly  Meeting  before,  to  aid  in  this  work  of  oppression, 
in  order  to  carry  into  effect  the  advice  of  the  Indiana  epistle. 
To  exclude  all  those  who  were  refractory,  by  the  slow  pro- 
cess of  complaining  of  individual  Friends,  and  bringing  them 
before  a  Monthly  Meeting,  to  be  there  condemned  and  ex- 
cluded, would  not  do.  It  was  necessary  to  exclude  by  hundreds 
and  by  thousands.  And  they  came  together  for  consultation. 
Shillitoe,  the  representative  of  John  Bull,  on  this  occasion, 
proposes  to  exclude  all  the  Hicksites — all  who  had  read  the 
sermons  of  Elias  Hicks,  and  given  an  opinion  upon  the  sub- 
ject. Not  because  they  were  disowned  members,  not  because 
they  were  not  in  unity  with  the  whole  society,  but  because 
they  had  expressed  some  sentiments,  which,  according  to  their 
garbled  opinions,  were  not  in  unity  with  the  sentiments  of  the 
society,  though  in  unison  with  Fox,  Penn,  and  all  the  ablest 
writers,  yet  with  this  new-fangled  divinity,  which  they  have 
got  up,  they  do  not  agree.  The  proposition  came  from  a 
foreigner,  a  man  who  is  here  to  enforce  the  dominion  that 
they  exercise,  for  aught  I  know,  in  England,  in  the  society. 
Whether  they  do,  or  not,  is  immaterial.  The  proposition  is 
agreed  to;  guards  are  appointed ;  an  unusual  number  are  ap- 
pointed ;  and  lest  the  heterodox  should  get  wind  of  this,  and 
those  who  do  not  altogether  disbelieve  in  the  doctrines  of  the 
fathers  of  the  church,  should  by  some  possibility  get  into  the 
house,  they  garrison  the  building.  They  put  in  Mr.  Heald, 
a  pretty  able  bodied  man,  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  gar- 
rison, and  he  collects  into  the  house  a  sufficient  force  to  main- 
tain it.  Against  whom?  Was  the  Yearly  Meeting  house  ever 
garrisoned  before?  And  for  what  purpose  was  it?  what  object? 
The  object  had  been  disclosed  by  Shillitoe.  The  proposition 
was  made  by  him,  and  concurred  in  by  the  orthodox,  to  hold 
exclusive  possession — that  before  they  would  admit  a  man,  he 
should  pass  the  ordeal  of  the  door  keepers.  They  have  lists 
furnished  them  of  such  persons  as  are  to  be  excluded.  Each 
person  has  one,  and  at  every  door  is  a  man  from  each  Quar- 
terly Meeting,  with  a  list  to  exclude,  they  say,  those  disowned: 


272 


Trial  of  Friends 


they  say  they  do  not  wish  to  exclude  any  others;  but  was 
that  the  proposition  ;  was  it  the  fact?  Had  Dawson  been  dis- 
owned— and  numbers  of  others  who  were  pushed  back  and 
stopped?  Not  a  word  of  it.  Was  Mrs.  Pierce  disowned,  who 
was  kept  out  in  a  manner  which  I  need  not  speak  of.'  It  must 
be  evident  to  every  body,  what  the  assembly  must  have  been. 
How  devoid  of  justice  and  respect  for  themselves,  and  every 
body  else,  to  keep  women  out  in  the  rain  and  mud,  as  they 
were  kept  out.  Those  who  had  a  right,  an  equal  right,  to  be 
there,  v.'ere  thrust  back  and  shoved  out,  to  endure  the  pelting 
of  the  storm,  while  the  orthodox  were  holding  exclusive  pos- 
session of  the  house. 

We  are  told  it  has  been  usual  to  place  guards  at  the  doors 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting  ;  to  place  persons  there,  to  whisper  and 
tell  those  not  members  that  they  ought  not  to  come  in;  but 
never  before,  does  any  member  of  the  society  tell  you,  that  he 
ever  saw  such  guards  placed  there;  no  member  ever  saw 
guards  pushing  back  with  all  their  might,  against  members 
who  had  a  right  to  be  there — as  good  a  right  as  any  in  the 
house. 

While  these  transactions  were  arranging  for  the  meeting  on 
Monday,  they  also  prepare  for  holding  a  meeting  of  the  commit- 
tee on  Indian  affairs,  though  not  at  the  fixed  time  for  their  meet- 
ing. They  now  pretend  that  they  had  mistaken  the  time.  They 
get  together  early  in  the  morning,  with  many  not  members  of 
that  committee,  and  all  these  foreigners,  these  hundred  from 
other  societies — they  get  possession,  and  form  a  solid  column 
round  the  clerk's  table.  They  take  possession  of  the  high  seats 
exclusively.  When  Israel  Updegraff  goes  in,  there  is  but  one 
solitary  seat  vacant,  where  he  can  get  a  place,  and  not  only 
were  the  benches  filled,  but  the  steps  in  front  of  the  table  are 
crowded  full  of  these  people.  They  have  formed,  as  they 
imagine,  an  impenetrable  phalanx,  to  guard  the  sanctum  sanc- 
torum, which  they  occupy.  Suppose  you  had  gone  in  at  the 
moment  when  the  doors  were  thrown  open,  and  found  all  the 
seats  vacant,  except  at  this  end  of  the  house,  and  persons 
crowded,  as  thick  as  they  could  be  upon  the  seats,  and  not  only 
the  seats  but  the  steps,  occupied  by  chosen  men,  and  the 
neighbouring  seats  well  crowded  in  this  quarter  of  the  house, 
•would  you  pronounce  this  the  usual  mode  of  taking  possession 
of  an  assembly,  going  in  and  occupying  all  the  honourable 
seats  in  a  dense  mass,  under  the  pretence  of  holding  a  meet- 
ing for  Indian  affairs,  entirely  out  of  order — at  a  time  when  no 
such  committee  could  assemble?  It  was  not  a  matter  proper 
for  their  discussion.  It  was  evident  that  all  these  foreign  de- 
legates who  had  collected  together  for  consultation,  had  not 
much  benevolence  for  these  poor  Indians. 

The  doors  are  thrown  open;  the  people  come  in;  and  the 


at  Stcubenvillc,  Ohio. 


273 


house  fills  up.  Then  appears  Thomas  Shillitoe,  in  supplica- 
tion. But  what  kind  of  supplication?  There  is  John  Bull 
praying  for  victory.  Yes.  Not  in  supplication  to  his  heavenly 
Father,  for  an  extension  of  brotherly  love  and  good  will  among 
the  brethren — not  in  supplication  for  the  benefit  of  the  church  j 
but  praying  stoutly  for  victory!  It  is  all  of  a  piece;  there  is 
the  same  hostile  attitude  from  the  commencement.  They 
carry  it  on  until  the  meeting  assembles,  then  place  themselves 
in  a  hostile  attitude,  and  pray  for  victory!  as  though  Shillitoe 
was  the  chaplain  of  a  regiment,  going  to  battle! 

Of  a  piece  with  this,  is  the  spirit  in  which  they  proceed  to 
disown  their  brethren.  What  says  the  Discipline?  If  a  mem- 
ber of  the  society  conduct  improperly,  and  deny  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  society,  he  shall  be  dealt  with, 
brought  up  before  the  Monthly  Meeting;  and  if  found  guilty 
by  the  Monthly  Meeting,  he  may  be  disowned.  But  is  there 
any  power  to  disown,  short  of  a  Monthly  Meeting  as  such,  not 
a  minority,  composed  of  two  members?  It  must  be  done  by 
the  majority,  or  must  be  united  in  by  the  meeting.  And  it 
must  be  his  own  meeting,  of  which  he  becomes  a  voluntary 
member,  to  whose  rules  and  discipline  he  has  attached  him- 
self. Now,  what  says  the  archbishop  of  the  society?  He 
says,  if  a  meeting  be  composed  of  fifty  members,  twenty  may 
disown  thirty.  He  is  asked,  whether  ten  could  disown  forty. 
Yes,  undoubtedly,  says  bishop  Bates.  Can  three  disown  forty- 
seven,  Mr.  Bates?  I  do  not  know  how  far  it  might  be  carried, 
but  a  very  few  can  disown  a  great  many.  This  is  the  ortho- 
dox principle,  declared  by  one  of  their  leading  men,  although 
unknown  to  their  discipline,  and  to  the  former  practice  of 
Friends  under  that  discipline.  It  originated  in  views  of  am- 
bition, in  devising  ways  and  means  to  tyrannize  over  their 
brethren;  and  on  this  principle,  they  effect  the  act  of  disown- 
ment.  They  do  not  look  to  the  discipline,  or  complaints  to 
Monthly  Meetings,  but  to  two  or  three  of  these  saints,  par  ex- 
cellence. I  suppose  Elisha  Bates,  Benjamin  "W.  Ladd,  and 
John  Street,  could  disown  the  whole  society,  and  take  pos- 
session of  the  whole  property.  You  will,  perhaps,  find,  that 
Ladd  and  Street  are  pretty  good  speculators.  I  should  be  in 
no  way  surprised,  if  these  three  should  get  possession,  and 
then  Ladd  should  disown  the  other  two,  upon  the  principles 
they  have  adopted.  It  would  be  carrying  these  principles  to 
their  ultimate  result,  and  it  is  what  they  naturally  lead  to. 

We  have,  may  it  please  your  honour,  a  sample  of  orthodox 
disownments.  We  find  by  the  Discipline  what  members  may 
be  disowned  for.  But  here  we  have  the  disownment  of  David 
Scholfield,  a  respectable  member  as  there  is  in  the  society, 
and  a  man  of  unquestionable  morals;  but  he  would  not  receive 
the  epistle  from  Indiana;  and  they  have  disowned  him.    It  is 


274 


Trial  of  Friends 


necessary  to  pay  particular  attention  to  tliis  disownment,  to 
show  the  nature  of  that  spirit  by  which  these  people  are  ac- 
tuated. It  is  an  extension  of  the  cloven  foot  of  these  orthodox 
to  the  noon-day  light. 

"  David  Scholfield  having  a  right  of  membership  in  the  society  of  friends, 
but  giving  way  to  a  spirit  of  dissension,  hath  charged  the  yearly  meeting  of 
Indiana,  8c  the  meeting  of  Sufferings  of  Ohio  yearly  meeting  with  making 
rong  representations  in  their  Testamony  &  epistle  of  advice,  &c.,  and  also 
said,  he  had  read  a  book  of  sermons  attributed  to  Elias  Hicks,  and  saw  no 
impropriety  in  the  doctrines  therein  contained,  &  he  being  labored  with 
&  it  not  having  the  desired  effect.  We  disown  him  from  being  a  mem- 
ber of  our  religious  society,  untill  he  becomes  sensible  of  his  misconduct, 
&  condemns  it  to  the  satisfaction  of  friends." 

Signed  in,  &  by  Order  of  Salem  monthly  meeting,  the  19th  day  of 
the  Third-month,  1828." 

"Joseph  Shbeve,  Clerk." 

I  know  not  how  far  the  orthodox  think  they  can  trammel  the 
human  mind,  or  hogw^  much  authority  they  suppose  can  be 
exercised;  but  here,  they  say,  is  a  man  who  has  given  way  to 
a  spirit  of  dissention,  because  he  questions  the  accuracy  of  the 
epistle  from  the  Indiana  Yearly  Meeting.  He  questions  the 
authority  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  in  attempting  to  cram 
it  down  the  necks  of  all  the  Monthly  Meetings.  And  for 
calling  in  question  the  correctness  of  these  representations,  he 
is  disowned.  It  would  be  ludicrous  to  suppose,  that  in  this 
country,  in  a  government  like  this,  a  man  can  subject  himself 
to  any  society  whatever,  that  shall  deny  him  the  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment  altogether.  The  question  would  answer  itself. 
There  is  no  such  society  here,  unless  it  is  the  Free  Masons ; 
and  that  I  know  nothing  about.  Certainly  there  is  no  such, 
that  is  open  to  the  eye  of  the  world.  There  is  nothing  like 
it  among  Quakers.  There  is  nothing  in  the  book  of  Disci- 
pline, or  in  their  practice,  which  can  hinder  them  from  express- 
ing themselves  freely,  especially  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Ohio.  Is  it  not  clear  and  indisputable,  that  Mr.  Scholfield 
might  have  expressed  his  opinion  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  with 
the  utmost  freedom  and  order?  It  is  so,  unquestionably.  And 
if  he  might  have  done  it  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  might  he  not, 
at  his  own  fire-side?  Is  there  any  thing  to  prevent  a  Friend 
from  expressing  his  opinion  on  this  subject?    There  is  not. 

There 'is  not  to  be  found  in  the  records  of  any  church,  not 
even  the'  Roman  Catholic,  in  its  worst  day,  an  attempt  more 
tyrannical,  an  attempt  more  absurd  and  ridiculous,  to  control 
the  minds  and  consciences  of  men,  than  this  attempt  of  the  or- 
thodox to  turn  men  out  of  the  society,  because  they  call  in 
question  the  correctness  of  a  forged  and  garbled  document. 
For  the  purpose  of  my  argument,  though  the  epistle  be  cor- 
rect, yet  it  is  imnuitcrial  whether  it  is  or  not — it  is  present- 
e-d  for  the  acceptance  of  ihc  Monthly  Meeting,  and  they  arc 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


275 


asked  to  unite  with  it.  A  member  hesitates  to  unite  in  it,  and 
expresses  an  opinion  that  it  is  incorrect:  he  does  not  charge 
it,  as  I  do,  with  positive  falsehood ;  but,  with  the  utmost  mo- 
deration, doubts  the  correctness  of  it :  and  expresses  an  opi- 
nion that  the  representatives  vary  from  the  truth  in  some  par- 
ticulars. And  for  that  expression  of  opinion,  they  undertake 
to  disown  him.  Now  they  have  no  such  authority  in  the  dis- 
cipline :  for  the  why  and  the  wherefore  that  they  may  expel  a 
member,  is  laid  down  in  the  discipline.  There  is  no  authority 
to  disown  a  member  for  any  other  matters  than  those  spe- 
cified by  the  discipline.  And  if  they  undertake,  by  ex  post  facto 
regulations,  to  make  that  an  offence,  which  was  not  so  at  the 
time  it  was  committed,  the  act  is  as  illegal  there,  as  in  civil 
society.  They  cannot  undertake  to  say  that  the  opinion  ex- 
pressed is  worthy  of  expulsion,  unless  that  opinion  is  recog- 
nised by  the  discipline  of  the  society,  as  being  worthy  of  ex- 
pulsion. 

But  this  is  not  all :  the  disownment  is  not  on  this  single 
charge.  He  also  said  he  had  read  a  book  attributed  to  Elias 
Hicks,  and  saw  no  impropriety  in  the  doctrines  therein  con- 
tained. Well,  was  there  any  impropriety  in  the  doctrines 
therein  contained?  What  sermons  were  they?  There  had  been 
published  a  great  number  of  sermons  by  Elias  Hicks.  What 
improprieties  were  there?  He  might  have  read  the  book  has- 
tily: he  might  have  overlooked  them,  without  noticing  them. 
Without  stating  that  they  contained  any  one  doctrine  contrary 
to  the  faith  that  they  held  to,  he  said  he  had  read  the  sermons, 
and  could  see  no  impropriety.  If  the  human  mind  were  to 
exert  itself  to  find  out  something  absurd  and  ridiculous,  it 
could  not  light  upon  a  case  more  palpably  absurd  than  this. 
No  ingenuity  could  go  lower  than  this.  But  is  it  within  the 
Discipline?  Had  they  any  right  to  disown  for  this?  The  gen- 
tlemen undertake  to  read  from  the  Discipline  something  in 
support  of  it.  But  what  is  the  inference  from  it?  It  shows 
you  that  their  proceedings  are  according  to  the  advice  of  Shil- 
litoe — that  they  have  been  proceeding  according  to  the  ad- 
vice of  Elisha  Bates,  and  not  according  to  the  usual  practice 
in  the  society:  not  according  to  the  ancient  and  received  max- 
ims of  the  society;  and  that  they  are  introducing  a  new  sys- 
tem of  coercion  and  tyrannical  power  over  their  brethren. 
And  if  they  have  not  reason,  within  the  discipline  of  the 
church,  to  disown  a  member,  then,  rather  than  not  disown 
him,  they  will  assign  reasons,  the  most  absurd  and  ridiculous. 

The  keen  sighted  Mr.  Ladd  can  see  an  error  in  Hicks'  ser- 
mons, from  the  most  garbled  extracts.  And  here  is  a  man 
who  has  read  the  sermons,  and  judged  for  himself,  but  is  less 
keen  sighted  than  Mr.  Ladd:  he  has  not  the  sagacity  that 
Ladd  has.    Instead  of  proceeding,  according  to  the  order  of 


2r6 


Trial  of  FrienJs 


the  society,  to  point  out,  with  brotherly  love,  the  errors,  and 
to  show  him  that  he  had  overlooked  this  assertion,  which  is 
not  according  to  our  faith,  and  this  insinuation,  which  is 
against  our  belief — instead  of  pointing  out  these,  they  attempt 
to  disown  the  man,  because  he  himself  said,  without  any  thing 
of  the  kind  being  pointed  out,  that  he  saw  no  impropriety — 
because  he  himself  has  not  sagacity  enough  to  see  as  far  as 
these  people  think  they  can  see.  It  is  an  evidence,  clearly  and 
conclusively,  that  these  disownments  are  a  piece  of  the  most 
ridiculous  and  absurd  tyranny  ever  attempted  to  be  exercised 
over  the  mind  of  man. 

I  have  said,  that  the  Friends  for  whom  I  appear,  claim  no 
more  than  their  equal  rights  in  this  society.  And  I  ask  your 
honour,  whether  any  thing  can  be  shown  to  contradict  this 
position?  I  know  it  has  been  said,  that  they  are  claiming  pro- 
perty: and  said  very  gratuitously  by  the  gentleman  on  the  other 
side.  But  there  is  no  foundation  for  this  in  the  evidence. 
They  contributed  to  the  purchase  of  ground,  and  to  the  erec- 
tion of  a  meeting  house.  They  are  the  proprietors  of  that 
house  and. ground — equally  so  with  the  orthodox.  The  pro- 
perty is  vested  in  trustees.  And  whether  the  statute  of  uses 
transferring  these  trusts  into  possession,  is  in  force  in  this 
state,  is  a  question  yet  undecided,  and  upon  which  the  judges 
of  the  supreme  court  are  equally  divided.  Whether  the  statute 
is  in  force,  and  such  use  and  possession  is  in  the  persons  for 
whom  it  is  vested  or  not,  still  these  individuals  have  the  use 
by  custom;  and  the  power,  by  possession  and  use.  The 
trustees  have  never  interfered  till  this  time.  And  the  defend- 
ants have  as  much  right  to  possession,  use  and  occupancy,  as 
those  men  who  claim  to  be  orthodox.  Many  have  not  been 
disowned  at  all:  and  many  have  been  disowned  in  this  irregu- 
lar way.  They  have  paid  their  money,  and,  in  equity  and  law, 
have  an  equal  right.  They  claim  no  exclusive  possession  or 
right  in  any  one  instance. 

But  we  are  told  that  we  have  had  conferences  with  each 
other:  that  we  have  met  in  a  barn:  that  we  had  a  conference 
at  the  meeting  house  in  Plainfield,  and  at  the  school  house  in 
Mount  Pleasant.  And,  it  is  said  here,  in  this  country,  that 
men  who  have  civil  and  religious  rights  have  met  to  consult 
upon  the  best  measures  for  asserting  those  rights;  and  it  is 
charged  as  a  crime,  that  they  have  so  met  and  assembled,  and 
held  conferences.  I  would  not  undertake  to  argue  to  this 
court,  that  any  number  of  individuals  have  a  right  to  assemble 
on  such  occasions.  It  is  a  power  that  no  court  will  ever  at- 
tempt to  control.  It  is  a  power  which  has  been  exercised  by 
all  citizens;  and,  whether  of  this  society  or  any  other,  it  is 
proper  for  them.  In  our  political  affairs,  who  ever  imagined 
it  illegal  or  improper,  to  meet  and  consult  on  measures  to  be 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


277 


pursued  in  furtherance  of  lawful  objects?  If  there  is  notliiiig 
unlawful  or  treasonable — if  there  be  no  conspiracy  against  the 
government,  the  assemblage  is  as  much  under  the  protection 
of  the  law  as  any  religious  assemblage  whatever;  because  citi- 
zens stand  on  a  perfect  equality  of  right,  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  shall  conduct  themselves,  so  long  as  they  avoid  a 
breach  of  the  public  peace. 

In  Washington  county,  Friends  met  in  a  barn.  They  had 
public  worship;  and  after  the  meeting,  they  had  some  con- 
sultation with  each  other.  At  Redstone  they  had  a  meeting, 
and  appointed  delegates  to  Plainfield.  Why  was  this  general 
conference?  I  will  tell  you  why  there  was  a  general  confe- 
rence. The  Meeting  for  Sufferings  had  appointed  sub-com- 
mittees to  go  to  all  the  Monthly  Meetings,  to  force  them 
to  receive  this  testimony,  as  a  rule  to  govern  their  conduct  as 
members.  But  they  would  not  receive  it,  and  called  in  ques- 
tion its  accuracy.  The  orthodox  then  proceed  to  disown 
them:  to  purify  the  church,  forsooth,  they  turn  out  every  man 
who  will  not  bow  down  and  worship  the  graven  image,  which 
they  have  set  up.  Those  Friends  w  ho  were  not  content  to 
succumb  to  this  tyranny  and  oppression,  thought  proper  to 
meet  together,  and  consult  on  what  should  be  done:  but  did 
they  agree  to  any  thing  unlawful?  I  care  not  whether  a  letter 
from  Israel  French  were  read  or  not.  It  was  lawful,  and  cor- 
rect, and  proper  for  them  to  consult.  Men  are  not  compella- 
ble to  stand  still,  and  be  trodden  under  foot.  They  have  a 
right  to  combine  for  the  protection  of  their  known  and  ac- 
knowledged rights.  They  did  meet  and  consult.  And  if,  may 
it  please  your  honour,  you  and  I  had  met  and  consulted,  we 
should  not  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  these  people  did, 
not  to  use  violence  in  asserting  our  rights.  We  would  have 
gone  a  little  further,  and  asserted  our  rights  by  force,  if  neces- 
sary. But  these  people,  instead  of  any  idea  of  force,  or  of 
going  beyond  their  ancient  order  and  Discipline,  determined 
to  attend  the  meeting,  but  to  go  quietly,  and  act  as  circum- 
stances might  require,  and  as  was  always  customary  with  the 
society.  They  conformed  strictly  to  the  principles  of  Friends, 
not  to  form  determinations  beforehand,  but  to  be  governed 
by  the  inspiration  or  impulse  of  the  moment — by  v/hat  ap- 
peared at  the  time,  to  be  correct  and  proper.  All  the  evidence 
shows  that  they  went  forward,  with  these  views  and  princi- 
ples, to  the  meeting.  They  found,  when  they  got  there,  that 
the  advice  given  by  Shillitoe,  and  which  they  knew  had  been 
concurred  in  by  the  orthodox,  and  by  which  they  were  to  be 
excluded,  one  and  all,  was  about  to  be  acted  on,  and  they  met 
in  the  school-house  to  consult.  It  was  a  lime  of  grief;  it  was 
a  time  of  great  pain  and  distress.  The  society  had  existed  near 
two  centuries  in  peace  and  harmony.  They  found  that  a  part 
35 


Trial  of  Friends 


»)f  ihcii'  Iji  etliieii,  from  whom  tliey  had  no  disposition  to  di- 
vide, were  assuming  the  exercise  of  dominion  over  them,  and 
I  lie  right  to  he  considered  exclusively  the  society,  and  to  bar 
them  out  of  the  house,  which  they  had  themselves  helped  to 
erect.  They  had  been  garrisoning  the  house  for  the  purpose 
of  excluding  them  by  force.  The  preparations  were  obvious. 
And  even  here,  when  the  question  was,  whether  they  should 
attempt  to  go  to  the  meeting — when  the  question  was  dis- 
cussed, and  when,  if  they  had  any  idea  of  force,  it  would  have 
been  the  time  to  determine  on  it,  it  was  agreed  not  to  use  any 
force.  They  agreed  to  go  to  the  meeting,  and  if  they  could 
get  in  peaceably,  to  go  in;  but  if  excluded,  if  they  did  not  ob- 
tain peaceable  admittance,  they  agreed  that  they  would  hold 
the  Yearly  Meeting  by  themselves;  that  they  would  choose  a 
clerk,  and  organise  themselves  as  a  Yearly  Meeting,  and  pro- 
ceed to  business;  but  not  unless  they  were  excluded  by  force. 
They  did  not  seek  a  division;  they  did  not  want  a  division. 
'I'hey  were  willing  to  be  placed  on  a  common  level  with  the 
orthodox,  and  to  let  the  majority  in  the  Yearly  Meeting — the 
great  legislative  and  judicial  power  of  the  meeting,  decide. 
They  wanted  no  exclusive  possession.  They  claimed  no  such 
possession.  Nor  is  there  any  one  fact  proven,  showing  that 
any  such  attempt  was  made  on  the  part  of  these  Friends, 
either  singly  or  collectively,  in  any  one  instance,  after  they 
had  carried  the  vote  for  clerk.  But  a  proposition,  for  the  al- 
ternate or  equal  use  of  the  house,  was  made,  and  indignantly 
rejected  by  the  orthodox. 

There  has  been  so  much  said  with  regard  to  the  right  of 
tiie  old  clerk  to  his  station,  and  the  irregularity  of  displacing 
him,  that  it  would  seem  the  old  clerk  was  appointed  by  the 
representatives  for  a  certain  period  of  time,  and  that  he  had 
somewhat  of  a  freehold  title,  till  that  time  expired;  and  that 
it  is  not  competent  and  proper  to  displace  him.  But  your 
honour  has  been  shown,  by  the  testimony,  that  the  clerk  is  the 
servant  of  the  meeting;  that  he  has  no  rights  there;  that  he 
is  a  mere  servant,  and  tiiat  the  society  have  no  presiding  officer 
in  their  meetings.  It  has  been  shown  also,  that  the  manner 
in  which  Hilles  was  appointed,  was  not  altogether  novel  in 
the  society.  A  similar  course  had  been  pursued  in  appoint- 
ing Taylor,  in  the  first  instance,  the  former  clerk  being  absent, 
or  disqualified  by  sickness.  In  my  view  of  the  subject,  it  is 
\ery  immaterial,  whether  the  old  clerk  was  appointed  for  a 
particular  time,  or  not;  immaterial,  whether  or  not  he  be  con- 
sidered as  analogous  to  a  chairman,  appointed  by  the  mem- 
bers of  a  legislative  body  of  representatives.  They  appoint 
their  speaker  and  clerk;  but  suppose,  while  you  were  a  mem- 
ber of  the  house  of  representatives,  that  the  speaker  had  dis- 
qualified himself  from  acting  acceptably;  suppose  he  had  come 
in,  and  taken  the  chair  drunk,  and  rather  than  to  have  him 


lit  Steubenville,  Ohio, 


279 


there  drunk,  you  had  made  a  proposition  to  remove  him, 
would  it  not  have  been  in  the  power  of  the  house  to  remove 
him?  What  person  on  earth  would  question  it  ?  Who  would 
say  that  they  should  sit  there,  day  after  day,  with  a  drunken 
fellow  in  the  chair,  because  there  was  no  authority  to  remove 
him?  Nobody  would  have  the  face  to  pretend  it.  There  could 
be  no  question  about  it.  You  would  have  had  the  authority, 
and  would  have  exercised  it. 

Well,  here,  may  it  please  your  honour,  is  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting,  possessing  all  power,  legislative  and  judicial!  they 
meet  together^  they  have  a  clerkj  let  him  be  a  presiding  officer 
or  not.    A  member  of  the  meeting  thinks  the  meeting  cannot 
proceed  with  this  clerk.    He  is  of  opinion  that  the  clerk  has 
disqualified  himself,  and  makes  the  proposition  to  the  meet- 
ing; the  proper  tribunal  to  decide.    If  there  never  had  been 
a  precedent — if  no  such  thing  had  ever  occurred,  they  had  a 
right  to  make  the  precedent.    They  had  the  power  assigned 
them  by  the  Discipline.    Like  the  legislature  of  a  state,  they 
had  made  their  rules,  and  they  could  abrogate  those  rules.  By 
one  vote  they  can  make  a  ruk  for  thcVr  own  government,  not 
for  others  who  may  succeed  them.    If  any  new  case  occur, 
it  is  to  be  acted  on  according  to  necessity  or  propriety.  They 
are  the  supreme  legislative  powei-;  they  can  look  no  whfere 
else  for  these  rules,  for  there  is  no  other  power  to  give  them; 
they  make  and  adopt  them  themselves.  When  such  a  proposi- 
tion is  made  to  this  meeting,  this  supreme  power,  to  displace 
a  clerk,  it  is  made  to  the  proper  power  to  decide  it.  And 
even  if  it  be  contrary  to  all  the  discipline  in  the  book,  the.y 
have  the  right  to  do  it,  because  they  have  the  power  and  right 
of  abrogating  and  changing  the  whole.    The  Discipline  is 
made  for  the  Quarterly  and  Monthly  Meetings;  it  contains 
rules  which,  so  long  as  the  Yearly  Meeting  choose  to  adhere 
to,  they  will  adhere  to.    But  a  discipline  made  last  year  can- 
not command  actual  authority  in  the  Meeting  of  this  year, 
any  more  than  any  legislature  of  this  year  can  make  rules  for  the 
next  year  ;  because  the  legislature  of  the  next  year  might  adopt 
them  or  reject  them.    This  arises  from  that  power  which  is 
inherent  in  the  assembly,  from  the  positive  and  absolute 
power  which  they  have  over  their  own  concerns.  Whether 
the  clerk  be  appointed  for  life,  or  for  one  hour — whether  his 
duties  were  to  continue  by  his  first  appointment  for  a  day,  or 
for  life,  he  was  their  servant,  not  their  master.    They  had  a 
right  to  displace  him,  and  say  that  he  was  an  unfaithful  ser- 
vant, and  put  another  in  his  place — in  the  place  of  this  "  vene- 
rable Friend,"  as  Mr.  Goodnow  says.   He  is  a  venerable  man, 
undoubtedly.    I  have  the  utmost  respect  for  Mr.  Taylor,  and 
I  am  sorry  that  so  good  a  man  as  he  is  would  suffer  himself  to 
be  used  in  the  way  he  has  born  :  I  am  sorry  that  ho  would  not 


20O 


Trial  of  Fricndt 


exercise  his  own  judgment  and  discretion,  and  not  be  govern- 
ed by  such  men  as  Benjamin  W.  Ladd.  Your  sympathy  is 
not  to  be  awakened  here  about  an  old  and  venerable  man.  It 
is  a  question  of  right,  not  of  feeling:  aquestion  as  to  the  right 
of  displacing- him  ;  and  his  being  old  or  young,  does  not  affect 
that  right.  It  makes  it  neither  stronger  nor  weaker.  The 
right  exists  fully  and  entirely.  It  was  the  meeting,  not  a  few 
members,  that  was  to  decide  upon  that  question.  It  was  not 
for  Ladd,  or  any  other  man,  to  say,  that  the  proposition  was 
not  worth  regarding.  It  was  not  for  one,  or  any  number,  to 
decide.  It  was  before  the  meeting — the  supreme  tribunal — 
and  to  be  decided  by  that  tribunal.  And  it  was  a  breach  of 
discipline,  and  out  of  order,  to  interrupt  them  in  the  decision 
of  that  question.  , 

Well,  then,  if  I  have  taken  a  correct  view  of  this  subject, 
there  was  a  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends  at  Mount  Plea- 
sant. Here  were  men  entertaining  different  sentiments  as  to 
faith.  Some  thought  Elias  Hicks  as  bad  as  Satan,  and  there 
were  others  who  could  not  see  that  he  was  any  worse  than 
some  of  the  orthodox  ministers  in  their  church.  They  met 
together.  They  were  one  body — one  legislature.  They  had 
not  divided.  The  meeting  was  disturbed — a  ^reaMisturbance 
occurred;  but  who  occasioned  that  disturbance?  You  do  not 
find,  by  the  discipline  of  the  church,  that  Israel  French  pro- 
ceeded contrary  to  order;  there  is  no  pretension  that  Israel 
French  occasioned  the  disturbance.  Yet,  if  the  clerk  proceeded 
correctly,  then  Israel  French  was  the  disturber  of  the  meeting. 
He  was  the  only  disturber,  if  it  was  out  of  order  to  displace 
the  old  clerks,  and  to  appoint  the  new  ones.  James  had  no 
agency  in  that,  neither  had  Hilles.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of 
evidence,  that  they  had  any  agency  in  it,  other  than  that 
Hilles'  name  was  mentioned;  but  he  did  not  make  that  mo- 
tion. If  you  look  to  that  motion  as  the  origin,  these  men  were 
not  guilty  of  the  disturbance.  These  men  were  as  passive  as 
any  other  members  of  the  meeting. 

If  you  look  to  the  discipline  of  the  church,  and  to  the  order 
of  proceeding  in  this  society,  you  will  find  that  the  disturbance 
was  made  by  the  old  clerk,  who,  being  displaced,  proceeded, 
contrary  to  uniform  practice,  to  act  in  an  office,  from  which 
he  had  been  removed  according  to  the  usual  mode  of  deciding 
such  questions.  And  this  created  a  great  deal  of  disorder 
and  confusion.  Much  will,  no  doubt,  be  said  as  to  the  haste 
with  which  it  was  done.  Is  it  not  accounted  for,  when  we 
consider  that  the  old  clerk  determined  to  pay  no  attention  to 
the  voice  of  the  meeting,  M'hen  the  meeting  had  determined 
that  a  new  clerk  should  be  appointed,  to  take  his  place.^ 
Was  there  no  cause  for  confusion.''  They  themselves  prevent- 
ed the  deliberation  which  usually  takes  place.  They  were  the 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


201 


cause  why  it  was  so  hastily  decided.  And  can  they  come  here, 
and  charge  their  opponents  with  having  made  a  disturbance 
■which  they,  themselves,  caused? 

Suppose,  from  the  evidence  you  have  before  you,  that  Tay- 
lor had  not  proceeded  to  read  the  opening  minute,  but  he  and 
his  assistant  had  remained  silent — and  when  it  was  said  that 
the  question  was  carried  to  appoint  another  clerk,  these  or- 
thodox men,  instead  of  ordering  Taylor  to  go  on,  had  told 
the  meeting  that  there  was  great  disimion  with  the  proposi- 
tion, and  that  it  would  be  proper,  before  the  question  should 
be  considered  as  carried,  that  it  should  remain  open  for  dis- 
cussion, till  they  could  deliver  their  sentiments  calmly,  and  in 
the  usual  method  against  the  proposition — would  there  have 
been  any  disturbance?  Can  you  learn  any  thing  of  the  kind 
from  the  evidence?  If,  then,  I  say,  instead  of  taking  this  dis- 
orderly course  of  compelling  Taylor  to  go  on,  they  had  risen, 
in  the  order  of  the  society,  and  opposed  this  proposition;  dis- 
cussed its  propriety;  defended  Taylor's  conduct;  and  agitated 
the  subject  properly,  before  the  meeting,  would  there  have 
been  any  such  conduct  as  that  which  is  complained  of?  If 
there  would  not  have  been  such  disturbance,  what  right 
have  they  to  charge  the  disturbance  upon  us  ?  Is  it  not  most 
clear  and  evident,  that  they  made  it  themselves?  That  it  was 
made  by  their  clamour,  and  will,  and  determination  to  bear 
down  every  thing,  to  call  themselves  the  exclusive  church,-  and 
their  opponents  heterodox,  and  without  the  church? 

I  have  never  known  more  than  one  or  two  instances  of  a 
similar  nature  with  this  proceeding;  they  were  in  the  eastern 
states,  where  a  man  may  complain  of  himself,  and  get  lined ; 
even  to  a  justice  of  the  peace,  he  may  enter  a  complaint,  in 
order  to  be  beforehand.  In  that  way,  I  have  known  the  great- 
est aggressors  to  be  the  earliest  to  complain;  to  be  the  persons 
complaining,  instead  of  complained  of.  The  proceedings  of 
these  prosecutors,  are  exactly  similar.  They  have  made  a 
disturbance;  and  judging  others  by  themselves,  were  afraid  of 
being  complained  of  and  prosecuted;  and  hurried  away  from 
the  Yearly  Meeting,  post  haste,  to  enter  complaint  before 
your  honour.  Why  quit  their  Yearly  Meeting  with  such 
eagerness,  as  was  evident  in  their  faces  and  manner,  if  not 
afraid  that  their  brethren  would  be  before  them?  They  were 
afraid  the  saddle  would  be  put  on  the  other  horse  ;  and  to  pre- 
vent this,  they  make  all  this  haste. 

I  will  not  take  up  much  more  time  in  this  discussion,  for  I 
think  it  is  clear,  that  it  is  a  case  not  within  this  statute.  It 
has  been  stated,  and  it  is  true,  that  this  statute  was  to  pre-' 
vent  disturbances  from  without — camp  meetings  might  be 
disturbed  by  a  rabble  from  without;  and  if  so,  they  might  be 
protected  under  this  statute.    They  might  be  disturbed  from 


282 


Trial  of  Friends 


what  might  arise  within  the  meeting.  Here  I  speak  from  no 
experience.  But,  from  what  I  can  learn,  several  preach  at 
once;  and  if  some  such  man  as  Elisha  Bates  should  get  up, 
and  preach  with  a  stentorian  voice,  above  all  the  rest,  would 
not  this  be  a  disturbance?  But  would  the  law  interfere,  and 
say,  you  preach  too  loud,  or  pray  too  loud,  and  disturb  others? 
Could  you  go  into  the  internal  policy  and  regulations  of  that 
society — or  those  of  the  congregationalists — a  society  which 
is  on  a  perfect  equality;  like  the  Quakers,  a  pure  democracy? 
Suppose,  in  their  conference,  a  clergyman  is  chairman.  Sup- 
pose a  proposition  be  made  to  displace  the  chairman,  stating 
that  his  conduct  has  been  such  as  to  render  it  improper  for 
him  to  sit,  and  recommending  that  some  other  one  be  ap- 
pointed; and,  thereupon,  a  vote  should  be  taken.  Suppose  that 
some  should  rise  and  ask  the  meeting  to  vote,  and  great  dis- 
order should  arise,  great  clamour  of  voices,  and  a  great  ma- 
jority should  determine  that  he  ought  to  be  removed.  Some 
laying  hands  on  the  new  chairman,  take  him  up  to  the  desk; 
others  oppose,  and  amidst  bustle  and  noise,  push  with  all  their 
might  to  prevent  it.  Nov/,  I  ask,  was  it  the  intention  of  the 
statute  law  that  a  judge  should  go  into  these  matters,  as  to 
right  and  wrong  in  this  religious  society?  It  appears  to  me 
not.  It  appears  to  me,  that  whatever  may  be  the  conduct  of 
these  meetings,  however  irregular,  and  however  they  may 
have  departed  from  their  discipline  and  practice;  however 
much  clamour  may  have  been  made,  and  even  Benjamin  W. 
Ladd  made  himself  liable  for  an  assault  and  battery,  as  he  un- 
doubtedly has,  and  many  others,  yet  they  are  isolated  offences; 
ihey  did  not  go  to  affect  the  meeting;  and  what  occurred  be- 
tween different  members  of  the  society,  under  their  mode  of 
doing  business,  is  a  question  purely  of  their  own  cognizance; 
and  neither  side  can  resort  to  the  laws  of  the  country,  and  by 
criminal  complaint  get  a  judgment  of  your  honour  upon  it. 
It  was  not  the  intention  of  the  statute.  It  is  not  within  the 
regular  sphere  of  judicial  duties,  to  go  into  the  order,  dis- 
cipline or  faith  of  a  particular  religious  society,  and  weigh 
one  against  the  other,  and  determine  between  them.  If  they 
have  a  dispute  among  themselves,  a  disturbance  of  the  meet- 
ing, the  law  never  intended  to  regulate  the  manner  in  which 
they  should  proceed  among  themselves;  but  it  has  said,  if 
you  disturb  these  people  when  worshipping,  or  when  quar- 
relling, you  shall  be  liable  to  this  statute.  If  a  man  had  gone 
into  this  meeting  drunk,  making  a  great  noise,  so  as  to  pre- 
vent them  from  going  on  with  the  business,  he  would  have 
been  liable  to  the  penalties  of  this  statute.  But  men  standing 
there,  as  my  clients  stood  there,  doing  no  act  which  they  had 
not  a  right  to  do  there,  arc  not  liable.  The  (juestion  is  not, 
in  relation  to  those  who  claim  to  he  exclusively  orthodox,  and 


at  Steubcnville,  Ohio.  283 

exclusively  religious — whether  they  are  so  pious  and  virtuous — 
whether  they  have  monopolized  all  to  themselves,  or  left  some 
small  modicum  to  the  others ; — it  was  not  the  intention  of  the 
legislature,  by  this  statute,  to  call  such  points  in  question. 

It  does  appear  to  me,  that  the  policy  of  our  government  will 
never  permit  a  judicial  tribunal,  to  interfere  with  any  eccle- 
siastical controversy.  And  in  this  case,  the  controversy  is 
not  one  in  which  the  state  is  interested,  but  it  is  a  controversy 
between  members  of  the  society  of  Friends.  And  we  think, 
your  honour  would  do  well,  to  tell  these  gentlemen  to  settle  it 
among  themselves. 

Speech  of  John  C.  Wuight,  Esq. 

Under  all  the  considerations  connected  with  this  subject,  if 
no  other  duties  devolved  on  me,  I  could  not  advert  to  the  multi- 
tude of  the  people  assembled,  during  the  nine  days  continuance 
of  this  trial;  I  could  not  advert  to  the  polite  audience  now  as- 
sembled here;  I  could  not  advert  to  the  powerful  talents  mani- 
fested on  the  other  side,  without  feeling  that  to  be  able  to 
engage  the  attention  of  this  audience,  would  require  of  me  an 
effort  that  is  unusual:  without  feeling  that  to  be  able  to  throw 
any  additional  light  upon  this  subject,  I  shall  be  more  fortunate 
than  has  generally  fallen  to  my  lot,  in  addressing  a  court.  Yet 
with  these  things  pressing  upon  me,  and  having  the  influence 
that  they  have,  I  must  proceed  to  the  discharge  of  the  duty. 
However  wearied  may  be  your  patience,  and  the  patience  of 
the  audience,  I  must  proceed  to  the  discharge  of  it,  having  an 
eye  to  the  weight,  power,  influence,  and  extraordinary  sar- 
casm, which  have  emanated  from  the  other  side. 

In  my  view  of  the  subject,  I  shall  endeavour  to  embrace  all 
that  has  been  said  on  the  other  side.  I  shall  have  to  call  on 
your  patience,  for  a  considerable  length  of  time.  I  am  un- 
willing to  do  so;  but  my  duty  presses  me  to  the  performance. 
I  will  strive  not  to  overlook  what  I  ought  to  say,  and  not  to 
hurry  it;  but  I  will  strive  for  one  thing  above  all  others,  that 
is,  to  avoid  much  of  the  vituperation  and  abuse,  which  the 
counsel  on  the  other  side  have  heaped  upon  this  case.  I  will 
try  to  proceed  to  the  investigation  of  the  case,  as  it  is,  not  as 
it  is  colouredly  represented  by  the  opposite  counsel.  I  will 
strive,  amid  the  multitude  of  chaif,  to  gather  the  few  grains- 
of  wheat  in  this  case.  1  mean  not  to  disparage  the  merits  of 
the  case,  when  I  speak  of  the  few  grains  of  wheat  in  it — but 
the  arguments -which  have  been  adduced.  For,  according  to 
my  understanding,  at  least  eight-tenths  of  the  evidence,  and 
perhaps  I  may  go  further,  and  say  nine-tenths  of  the  arguments 
of  the  opposite  counsel,  have  been  uttered  with  no  pertinency 
to  ih**  case.     They  could  be  pertinent  only,  as  being  thought 


284  Trial  of  F riends 

necessary  by  the  counsel  to  take,  having  previously  interested 
himself  for  that  party  in  the  county,  and  not  only  in  the  coun- 
ty, but  in  the  whole  union,  and  perhaps  the  world;  without 
which  interest,  doubtless,  he  never  would  have  been  concerned 
in  the  cause.  He,  adverting  to  this  consideration,  was  led  to 
submit  views  upon  the  subject,  which  might  not  otherwise 
have  been  pressed  upon  your  consideration. 

But,  sir,  I  apprehend  it  will  be  necessary  to  proceed  to  an  or- 
derly investigation,  of  what  constitutes  the  society  of  Friends; 
whether  the  party  assembled  were  the  society  of  Friends,  or 
in  the  exercise  of  privileges,  supposed  by  them  to  pertain  to 
members  of  the  society  of  Friends,  and  entitling  them,  so  as- 
sembled, to  the  protection  of  the  laws  of  the  land.  To  do  this, 
before  I  go  into  an  investigation  of  the  evidence  as  to  the  par- 
ticular transaction,  and  the  acts  of  disturbance  complained  of, 
as  committed  by  the  defendants,  it  may  be  necessary  to  advert 
to  some  documents,  to  show  what  the  society  of  Friends  is,  and 
to  show  its  organization  and  structure,  as  connected  with 
this  transaction. 

What,  then,  is  the  society  of  Friends?  It  is  not,  as  my  bro- 
ther Hubbard  supposed,  a  society  circumscribed  and  known 
only  by  its  territorial  limits.  It  is  a  community  of  persons, 
acting  in  unison,  in  religious  faith,  worship,  and  discipline,  for 
the  government  of  its  members;  not  the  unison  in  faith  and 
worship,  of  one  particular  meeting  of  Friends,  but,  in  its  ge- 
neral aspect,  embracing  ali  the  Yearly  Meetings  in  the  Uni- 
verse; united  in  faith,  in  action,  and  discipline.  I  need  only 
advert  to  the  universal  custom  of  the  society,  from  its  organi- 
zation to  this  period,  of  sending  epistles,  containing  statements 
from  the  particular  societies,  from  which  they  are  sent,  to  all 
the  other  societies  and  Yearly  Meetings  in  unison  with  them; 
by  which  they  become  acquainted  with  the  concerns,  spiritual 
and  temporal,  of  other  societies  in  unison  with  them;  seeking 
to  bring  forth  concerted  action  in  the  world,  and  with  all  par- 
ties who  are  engaged.  • 

I  say,  sir,  that  all  the  Yearly  Meetings  in  the  world,  who 
profess  the  faith,  and  follow  the  doctrines  of  the  society  oT 
Friends,  are  embraced  in  that  general  description;  and  I  need 
not  go  further,  than  to  advert  to  the  writings  of  Geo.  Fox,  to 
show  that  the  society  of  Friends,  in  its  inception,  and  from 
that  period  to  this,  has  been  a  society  of  Christians,  properly 
so  called ;  and  I  mean  by  this  term,  those  who  believe  in  the 
Divine  character  and  vicarious  agency  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  am 
perfectly  aware,  that  at  an  early  period  of  this  church,  or  of 
the  society  of  Friends,  as  well  as  in  the  early  part  of  the 
establishment  of  the  Christian  religion,  there  were  those  who 
attempted  to  attack  the  Divine  character  of  our  Saviour,  and 
sought  to  build  up  to  themselves  a  society,  professing  to  rest 


at  Steubcnvillc,  Ohio. 


285 


their  faith  on  the  hypothesis,  that  he  was  a  mere  Jiian,  good,  to 
be  sure,  but  lower  than  the  angeis: — a  mere  man,  hardly  gifted 
Avith  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  But  these  were  not  the  doctrines 
of  the  society  of  Friends,  of  George  Fox  and  William  Penn. 
They  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends  at  this  day. 

The  society  of  Friends  are  Trinitarian  in  their  notions.  And 
I  know  well,  too,  that  even  in  the  first  and  second  centuries 
of  the  Christian  era,  there  were  the  Gnostics,  and  others,  who 
defended  the  doctrines  now  advanced  by  the  other  side.  If  any 
will  advert  to  the  early  church  history,  to  those  to  whom  I 
have  adverted,  they  will  find  a  remarkable  coincidence,  even 
in  the  words  of  doctrine  set  forth  by  some  of  those  distin- 
guished persons,  and  those  now  claimed  to  be  the  genuine  doc- 
trines of  Friends — I  mean  those  inculcated  in  the  revolutionary 
spirit  of- Elias  Hicks,  which  doctrines  my  brother  Hubbard 
thinks  no  man  ought  to  dispute — doctrines  inculcated  in  ser- 
mons, concerning  which,  he  thinks  it  adviscable  to  sneer  at  my 
colleague,  because  he  could  not  see  the  difTcrence  between 
them  and  Deism. 

Well,  sir,  whatever  may  be  the  feelings  of  the  counsel  on  the 
other  side,  it  matters  not  with  me,  and,  I  apprehend,  not  with 
your  honour,  in  our  search  after  truth.  I  say,  this  society,  as 
a  Christian  society,  believes  and  professes,  and  did  from  its 
foundation,  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  And  I  need  not  go,  cer- 
tainly, at  the  first  step,  beyond  the  Discipline  itself,  to  deter- 
mine the  fact.— O/iw  Discipline,  p.  22.  [See  page  218  of  this 
work.] 

Now,  can  there  be  any  thing  more  explicit  than  this?  Surely 
there  is  Yiot.  But  this  is  not  all  the  evidence  I  have  upon  the 
subject.  The  following  was  published  by  order  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Ohio,  as  containing  the  doctrines  of  the  society. 

"The  society  of  Friends,  from  the  beginning,  have  believed  in  the  di- 
vinity and  humanity  of  Christ.  The  history  ot"  his  miraculous  conception, 
birth,  life,  sufferings,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  as  recorded  by  the 
Kvangelists,  w  e  fully  believe." — (Bules'  Doctrines  of  Friends,  p.  76.) 

"  G.  Fox,  in  iiis  journal,  vol.  1,  p.  4.  says:  "  Tiiis  priest  Stevens  asked 
nic,  why  Christ  cried  out  upon  the  cross:  'My  God,  my  God,  wliy  hast 
thou  forsaken  me''  and  why  he  said,  'If  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass 
from  me:  yet  not  my  will,  but  thine  be  done.'  1  told  him,  at  tliat  time,  the 
sins  of  all  matikiiul  were  \.\\)0\\  him,  and  their  iniquities  and  transgressions, 
wth  which  he  was  wounded,  which  he  was  to  bear,  and  to  be  an  offering' 
for,  as  he  was  man,  but  died  not  as  he  was  God:  so,  in  that  he  died  for  alt 
men,  tasting  death  for  every  man,  lie  was  an  offering  for  tlie  sins  of  the 
whole  world.  This  I  spoke,  being  at  that  time,  iii  a  measure,  sensible  of 
Ciirist's  sufferings." — {Bates'  Doctrines  of  Friends,  p.  76.) 

"  G.  Fox,  and  others,  in  an  address  to  tlie  Governor  of  Barbadocs.  {x-idr 
Journal,  vol.  2,  p.  l.'!9,)  says,  "  We  own  anrl  believe  in  .Icsus  Christ,  hi* 
beloved  and  only  begotten  Son,  in  whom  he  is  well  pleased:  who  was  con- 
'■eived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  whom  wc  have 
redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  w  ho  is  the  ex- 

.36 


Q86 


Trial  of  Friends 


press  iniivge  of  tlie  invisible  God,  tlie  first-born  of  every  creature,  by  whom 
were  all  tilings  created,  that  are  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  visible  or  invisible, 
whether  they  be  thrones,  dominions,  principalities,  or  powers,  all  things 
were  created  by  Him.  And  we  own  and  believe,  that  he  was  made  a  sacri- 
fice for  sin,  who  knew  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth:  that 
he  was  crucified  for  us  in  the  flesh,  without  the  gates  of  Jerusalem;  and 
that  he  was  buried,  and  rose  again  the  third  day,  by  the  power  of  the  Fa- 
ther, for  our  justification,  and  that  he  ascended  up  into  heaven,  and  now 
sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  This  Jesus,  who  was  the  foundation  of 
the  prophets  and  apostles,  is  our  foundation,  and  we  believe  tliere  is  no 
other  foundation  to  be  laid,  but  that  which  is  laid,  even  Christ  Jesus:  who 
tasted  death  for  every  man,  shed  his  blood  for  all  men,  is  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 
'  He  is,  (as  the  scriptures  of  truth  say  of  him,)  our  wisdom,  righteousness, 
justification,  and  redemption;  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  for 
there  is  no  other  name  under  heaven  given  amongst  men,  whereby  we  may 
be  saved.'  " — (Bates'  Doctrines  nf  Friends,  pp.  77,  78.) 

Now,  after  reflecting  on  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  that 
book,  recognised  as  it  has  been,  and  published  as  it  has  been, 
by  the  society  of  Friends,  with  what  face  could  the  counsel 
say,  that  the  society  is  founded  on  such  principles  that  it 
would  become  a  large  society,  giving,  as  a  reason,  that  they 
have  no  creed,  no  belief  or  touchstone,  by  which  to  ascertain 
the  faith  of  its  members.  There  was  a  principle  in  the  forma- 
tion of  this  society,  deeper  than  could  be  established  by  any 
of  the  authors  to  which  he  may  resort,  either  Douglas  or  any 
other.  And  they  cannot  gainsay  or  shake  the  foundation, 
which  we  have  shown  was  the  foundation  and  practice  of  the 
society  of  Friends.  Sir,  is  it  necessary  to  go  further.^  I  ap- 
prehend it  is  Tiotj  for  surely  we  ought  not  to  multiply  proofs 
on  a  subject  which  has  already  been  demonstrated.  Though 
1  might  multiply  proofs,  till  I  should  weary  your  patience  with 
the  reading  of  them.  I  will  say,  then,  once  for  all,  that  though 
some  maintain  that  the  society  of  Friends  is  a  society  of  Ari- 
ans  or  Socinians,  yet  they  maintain  that  for  which  no  authority 
can  be  found,  in  their  early  history,  or  in  any  of  their  testimo- 
nies or  records. 

What,  then,  is  the  character  of  the  society  called  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Friends  of  Ohio?  It  is  necessary  to  solve  this  ques- 
tion. Its  territorial  limits,  when  established,  embraced  all  the 
Friends,  west  of  the  mountains.  It  was  separated  from  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Baltimore.  Is  it  representative?  As  a 
meeting  for  worship,  it  is  general;  but  for  business  or  disci- 
pline, it  is  representative  in  character.  And  if  the  gentlemen 
like  the  term,  so  far  as  it  respects  worship,  it  is  a  pure  de- 
mocracy; but  for  business,  it  is  a  representative  democracy. 
And  I  will  produce  authorities  for  this  assertion.  And  the 
first,  is  an  extract  from  the  records  or  minutes  of  the  society 
itself. 


at  Steubenvitle^  Ohio.  28^ 

At  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  of  ministers  and  elders,  for  the 
state  of  Ohio,  Indiana  territory,  and  the  adjacent  parts  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Virginia,  first  opened  and  held  at  Short 
Creek,  the  14th  of  the  8th  month,  18-13: 

It  appears,  that  the  proposal  for  a  division  of  Baltimore 
Yearly  Meeting,  which  was  united  with,  and  forwarded  for  con- 
sideration by  the  Quarterly  Meetings  on  the  west  side  of  the 
Allegheny  mountains,  having  obtained  deliberate  attention, 
the  following  report  was  adopted: 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  unite  with  women  Friends,  in  a  further 
consideration  of  the  interestinij  subject  of  a  Yearly  Meeting'  to  be  held  in 
the  state  6{  Ohio,  report,  tliat  we  have  several  times  met,  and  have  had  the 
company  of  several  brethren  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia  and 
Virginia;  and  believing-,  that,  in  our  deliberations,  we  have  been  favoured 
with  a  degree  of  solemnity,  we  are  free  to  propose,  that  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ings west  of  the  Allegheny  mountains,  within  the  veige  of  this  Yearly 
Meeting,  be  at  full  liberty  to  convene  together  at  Sliort  Creek  on  the 
tliird  First-daj'  in  the  8th  month  next,  in  the  capacity  of  a  Yearly  Meeting, 
agreeably  to  their  prospect  and  desire,  as  expressed  in  their  reports  to  the 
meeting  last  year,  which  was  united  With;  and  the  Quarterly  Meetings  to 
the  westward  of  the  Allegheny  mountains,  which  have  hitherto  belonged 
to  this  Yearly  Meeting,  are  at  liberty  to  send  representatives,  and  to  for- 
ward their  contributions  and  reports  thereunto,  accordingly." 

If  this  does  not  give  power  to  the  Quarterly  Meetings  to 
constitute  this  Yearly  Meeting,  I  do  not  know  what  would. 
But  I  do  not  wish  to  confine  myself,  on  the  subject,  to  the  mi- 
nute which  I  have  just  read.  I  propose  to  probe  it  to  the  bot- 
tom. And,  with  that  view,  I  will  call  your  attention  to  the 
reports  and  epistles  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  from 
1681  to  1800,  inclusive,  with  an  introduction  to  sustain  the 
representative  character  of  the  meeting. 

"The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  held  in  London,  is,  at  present,  as  for  a 
long  time  past,  constituted  of  representatives  from  Great  Britain  and  Ire- 
land, and  it  maintains  a  correspondence  and  connexion  with  the  Yearly 
Meetings  of  the  same  denomination,  now  seven  in  number,  in  North  Ame- 
rica. Its  records  reach  back  to  the  year  1672,  in  which  year  a  general 
meeting  was  held  for  the  affairs  of  the  society. 

"  In  1672  we  find  a  representative  constitution  adopted.  The  regula- 
tions on  the  subject  begin  thus.  At  a  general  meeting  of  Friends,  for  the 
nation,  held  at  Devonshire  House,  London,  the  29th  of  the  3d  month,  1672, 
it  is  concluded,  agreed  and  assented  unto  by  Friends  there  present,  that, 
for  the  better  ordering  and  regulating  of  the  public  affairs  of  Friends,  re- 
lating to  tiie  truth  and  the  service  thereof,  there  be  a  general  meeting  of 
Friends  held  in  London  once  a  year,  in  the  week  called  Whitsun-week,  to 
consist  of  six  Friends  for  tlie  city  of  London,  three  for  the  city  of  Bristol, 
two  for  the  town  of  Colchester,  and  one  or  two  from  each  and  every  of  the 
counties  of  England  and  Wales  respectively." — ji.  4. 

In  the  next  year,  1673,  at  a  "general  meeting  at  London,  the  20th  and 
21st  days  of  the  3d  month,"  the  following  conclusions  were  recorded. 
"Agreed,  that  the  general  meeting,  consisting  of  two  Friends  from  each 
Quarteily  Meeting,  about  public  businrss,  appointed  on  the  29lh  of  3d 


Trial  of  Friends 


uiontli,  167'2,  till  fuilher  ui\ler,  be  Jiscontimied,  till  Frieiuls,  in  God't  wis- 
dom,- shall  3es  a  further  occasion. 

"  That  the  general  meeting,  of  Friends  who  labour  in  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  do  continue  as  formerly  appointed." — p.  5. 

We  see,  then,  that  though  the  Yeafly  Meeting  of  repre- 
sentatives was,  in  1673,  discontinued,  till  Friends  should  see 
fit  to  re-establish  it,  yet  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  ministers  and 
elders  was  to  continue  as  usual.  You  see  that  they  were  ap- 
purtenant to  the  first  meeting:  and  when  the  meeting  of  repre- 
sentatives was  discontinued,  as  a  matter  of  expediency,  the  meet- 
ing of  ministers  and  elders  was  continued  as  formerly.  I  now 
refer  to  pages  9  and  10.  It  is  important,  as  showing  the  re- 
vival, (after  the  discontinuance  in  1673,)  of  a  general  Yearly 
Meeting  for  the  affairs  of  the  society  on  the'basis  of  repre- 
sentation.  This  minute  shall,  therefore,  be  subjoined  at  length. 

"  Then  agreed,  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  one  or  two  from  each  county 
(as  formerly  agreed  upon  at  u  general  meeting,  in  London,  upon  the  29th 
of  the  3d  month,  1672,  appointed  yearly  to  meet  about  public  affairs  of 
Friends,  sometime  in  the  week  called  Whitsun-week,  until  further  order, 
and  afterward  agi'eed  to  be  discontinued  from  the  21st  of  the  3d  month, 
1673,  till  Friends,  in  God's  wisdom,  should  see  a  further  occasion  for  it,) 
be  again  revived,  and  begin  this  time  twelve-month. 

*•  And  it  is  desired  that  the  Friends  who  shall  come  up  out  of  the  several 
counties,  be  such  as  understand  the  sufferings  and  affairs  of  their  respec- 
tive counties." 

I  think,  after  this,  there  cannot  be  a  doubt  as  to  the  repre- 
sentative character  of  this  meeting.  Its  discontinuance  and 
revival,  after  a  lapse  of  that  period,  being  ascertained,  it  can- 
not be  disputed  that  the  society,  in  its  original  form,  was,  and 
in  its  revival  in  1677,  continued  to  be,  not  a  pure  democracy, 
but  a  representative  democracy. 

I  now  ask  the  attention  of  the  court  to  Gough's  History, 
which  was  quoted  with  such  an  air  of  triumph  and  exultation 
by  the  opposite  counsel,  who  thought  he  had  cut  off  the  head 
of  this  case — not  that  he  read  one  part,  and  omitted  the  other, 
by  design;  yet,  it  would  appear,  that  such  was  the  fact.  He 
"was  reading  of  the  very  identical  period,  during  the  continu- 
ance of  the  suspension.  Here  Mr.  Wright  read  from  vol.  2, 
Gough's  History,  pages  163  and  164. 

"  Sometime  after  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meetings  were  established,  viz. 
in  the  year  1 669,  it  was  found  expedient,  and  agreed  upon,  to  hold  a  gene- 
ral meeting  in  London,  representative  of  the  whole  body  in  England, 
.and  all  other  ])arts  where  any  of  the  society  were  settled;  which,  having 
been  thenceforward  held  annually,  is  denominated  the  Yearly  Meeting  in 
London. 

"  This  meeting  is  constituted  of  representatives  dci)med  from  each  Quar-' 
terly  Meeting  in  F.ngland,  from  the  Half  Year's  Meeting  in  Ireland,  and 
sometimes  from  other  parts,  yet  without  restraining  any  member  in  unity 
with  the  society,  from  attending.  And  such  places  in  I'.urope  and  America, 
as  by  their  remote  situation  cannot  conveniently  send  representatives  there- 
to, keep  up  a  correspondence  with  this  meeting  by  epistles." 


at  Steitbenville,  Ohio.  289 

And  page  166. 

"  From  these  meetings  of  discipline,  no  members  of  the  society  ara 
excluded;  but  every  one  in  unity,  hath  liberty  to  attend,  and  express  his 
sentiments  with  freedom,  in  the  fear  of  God,  upon  the  subject  matters  of 
tleliberation;  but  the  sense  of  the  subordinate  meetings,  in  particular  cases, 
is  generally  understood  by  the  representation  of  their  deputed  representa- 
tives." 

Here,  notwithstanding  all,  in  unity,  are  at  liberty  to  attend 
and  express  their  sentiments,  yet  the  sense  of  the  meeting  is 
generally  understood  to  be  determined  by  the  representatives. 
If  there  be  any  difficulty  or  doubt  remaining,  after  all  this 
light  has  been  shed  upon  the  subject,  it  is  determined  by  the 
representatives  deputed  from  the  different  meetings.  This  is 
the  answer  which  the  historian  gives,  and  this  is  the  point, 
which  my  friend,  Mr.  Hubbard,  thought  it  material  to  omit. 
I  will  now  cite  Penn's  Select  AVorks,  fol.  vol.  p.  771. 

"  Now,  the  care,  conduct,  and  discipline,  1  have  been  speaking  of,  and 
whicii  are  now  practised  among  this  people,  is  as  foUoweth: 

"  This  godly  elder,  in  every  county  where  he  travelled,  exhorted  them, 
that  some,  out  of  every  meeting  for  worship,  should  meet  together  once  in 
the  month,  to  confer  about  the  wants  and  occasions  of  the  church.  And 
as  the  case  required,  so  those  Monthly  Meetings  were  fewer  or  more  in 
number,  in  every  respective  county:  four  or  six  meetings  for  worship, 
usually  making  one  Monthly  Meeting  for  business.  And  accordingly  the 
brethren  met  him,  from  place  to  place,  and  began  the  said  meetings:  viz. 
For  the  Poor  Orphans,  Orderly  Walking,  Integrity  to  their  Profession, 
Births,  Marriages,  Burials,  Sufferings,  &c.  And  that  these  Monthly  Meetings 
should,  in  each  county,  make  up  one  Quarterly  Meeting,  where  the  most 
zealous  and  eminent  Friends  of  the  county  should  assemble,  to  communi- 
cate, advise,  and  help  one  another,  especially  when  any  business  seemed 
difficult,  or  a  Monthly  Meeting  was  tender  of  determining  a  matter. 

"  Also,  that  these  several  Quarterly  Meetings  should  digest  the  reports 
of  their  Monthly  Meetings,  and  prepare  one  for  each  respective  countv, 
against  the  Yearly  Meeting,  in  which  all  Quarterly  Meetings  resolve;  which 
i.s  held  in  London,  where  the  churches  In  this  nation,  and  other  nations  and 
provinces,  meet,  by  chosen  members  of  their  respective  counties,  both  mu- 
tually to  communicate  their  church  affairs,  and  to  advise,  and  be  advised, 
in  any  depending  case,  to  edification.  Also,  to  provide  a  requisite  steck  for 
the  discharge  of  general  expenses,  for  general  services  in  the  church,  not 
needful  to  be  here  particularized^ 

"At  these  meetings,  any  of  the  members  of  the  churches  may  come,  if 
they  please,  and  speak  their  minds  freely,  in  the  fear  of  God,  to  any  matter: 
but  the  mind  of  each  Quarterly  Meeting,  therein  represented,  is  chiefly 
imderstood,  as  to  particular  cases,  in  the  sense  delivered  by  the  persons  de- 
puted or  chosen  for  that  service,  by  the  said  meeting." 

I  think  I  have  proven,  conclusiviy,  from  the  writings. of 
early  Friends,  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  a  representative  de- 
mocracy, when  assembled;  and  it  does  not  meet  rhis  argument, 
or  this  fact,  to  say,  that,  by  the  tolerance  of  this  society,  other 
persons  than  representatives  have  been  permitted  to  unite  and 
vote.  The  very  assertion,  that  each  individual  has  exercised 
the  riglii,  and  voted  upon  questions,  is  cut  up  by  their  own 


290 


Trial  of  Friends 


position.   For,  in  one  part  of  their  defence,  they  say,  the  society 
do  not  determine  propositions  by  the  number  of  voices,  and 
by  vote.    Why,  then,  all  this  objection  to  our  position,  that 
those  who  are  not  representatives  have  no  other  authority 
than  that  of  attending  and  aiding  by  suggestions  and  counsel? 
I  ask,  why  is  all  this?    It  is  because  there,  they  follow  the 
penchant  of  those  witnesses  who  were  travelling  without  the 
limits  of  the  discipline  of  the  society,  while  urged  forward 
by  that  zeal  which  tramples  it  under  foot.    They  had  not  dis- 
covered it?  but  when  they  come  to  call  deliberate  counsel, 
they  find  where  it  is  they  have  erred;,  now  they  press  with 
all  the  counsel  that  can  be  raised,  that  this  government  is  a 
simple  democracy,  and  not  representative.    We  need  not  go 
to  ancient  times  to  find  cases  analogous  to  this.    Look  at  the 
representative  assembly  of  this  nation.    We  have  men  there 
who  are  permitted  to  introduce  subjects,  to  shed  all  the  light 
upon  them  of  which  they  are  capable,  and  yet  they  are  not 
entitled  to  vote  upon  the  subject.    And  whenever  a  subject 
becomes  difficult  or  doubtful,  the  speaker  determines  it.  Then 
these  persons  have  to  be  silent — I  mean  the  delegates  from  our 
territories.    They  stand  in  a  situation  analogous.    They  come 
by  virtue  of  a  special  legislative  actj  and  is  there  any  more  vir- 
tue in  a  special  legislative  act  than  in  the  customs  and  laws  of 
a  society  governing  themselves?    No  man  will  pretend  it,  who 
relies  upon  history  to  sanction  him  in  the  assertion.  Clark- 
son  was'  cited  on  the  other  side,  but  I  will  not  trouble  your 
honour  by  referring  to  it,  for  in  my  opinion  there  is  no  one 
single  passage  that  militates,  in  the  slightest  degree,  against 
the  position  I  have  taken.    Take  that  which  my  friend  has 
just  now  urged,  and  brought  to  your  own  knowledge  and  ex- 
perience.   What  does  he  say-^    Why,  at  the  periods  of  these 
Yearly  Meetings,  you  see  the  Quakers  throwing  aside  all  bu- 
siness, and  gathering  to  the  place  appointed.    And  when 
there,  they  are  satisfied  with  the  proceeding  of  the  meeting, 
and  acquiesce  in  it,  because  they  esteem  it  their  own  act.  But 
how  does  this  militate  against        position,  that  they  are  a 
representative  democracy?    In  the  shedding  of  light  in  the 
meeting,  by  eagh  individual  member;  as  that  satisfies  them, 
their  own  presence  has  been  carried  into  the  consideration. 
The  man  goes  to  this  assembly,  and  mixes  with  the  members; 
and  when  there,  if  he  is  moved  to  discuss  a  proposition  of 
others,  or  to  suggest  one  himself,  there  Is  liberty  to  do  so.  He 
goes  into  a  discussion,  raises  arguments  against  what  may  be 
advanced  on  the  other  side,  and  then  the  decision  is  gathered. 
By  what?    Not  by  numbers,  but  as  the  weight  of  argument  in 
the  case  appears  to  be.    That  is  the  reason  given  in  all  the 
l)ooks;  it  is  the  only  mode  by  which  they  gather  tjie  sense. 
I  am  told  here,  by  the  other  side,  that  it  is  precisely  in  ac- 


at  SieubenvilU,  Oliio. 


291 


cordance  with  the  mode  of  all  the  deliberative  assemblies  in  the 
world.  It  is  not  so.  If  there  be  doubt,  in  many  deliberative 
assemblies,  they  call  the  ayes  and  noes;  and  the  Friends  unite, 
not  by  the  rule  of  the  society  itself,  but-  by  its  original  organi- 
zation. It  is  a  matter  of  historical  truth.  You  count  in  the 
house  of  commons,  in  England,  whence  we  derive  our  princi- 
ples of  government— you  cannot,  there,  call  the  ayes  and  noes. 
They  are  unknown  by  parliament,  by  their  own  rules,  or  any 
other  foundation  on  which  they  have  acted.  They  decide,  not 
by  weight  of  argument,  but  by  count  of  numbers.  Is  that  the 
way  in  which  Friends  settle  their  questions?  It  is  not.  His- 
tory says  otherwise — every  witness  says  otherwise — the  gen- 
tlemen themselves  have  been  pressed,  and  compelled  to  say 
otherwise;  and  yet  they  advance  this  argument.  Well  may  it 
then  be  urged  as  a  reason — (for  it  is  well  understood  that 
Clarkson  was  only  giving  a  portraiture,)  why  there  is  so  little 
disturbance;  every  man  feels  that  his  voice  has  been  carried 
into  the  making  of  their  laws.  He  has  been  permitted  to  go 
forward  to  the  general  assembly,  where  the  legislative  and  ju- 
dicial powers  are  concentrated,  there  to  express  his  own  views 
and  opinions.  This  is  all  that  is  meant  by  it;  and  I  think  it 
in  vain  to  appeal  to  it. 

This  society  of  Friends,  being  representative  in  its  charac- 
ter, consists  of  certain  other  parts.  For  the  purpose  of  wor- 
ship, it  is  generally  public,  not  only  for  members,  but  for  the 
world  at  large.  But  for  the  purpose  of  discipline,  it  is  select. 
This  is  enjoined,  not  only  in  this  Discipline,  but  in  the  Dis- 
cipline of  other  Yearly  Meetings.  It  has  a  clerk,  and  as  it  has 
a  clerk,  it  has  a  head.  And  as  a  head,  the  clerk,  in  that  po- 
sition, is  not  contradicted  in  opinion. 

No  democracy,  however  simple  and  pure  it  may  be,  can 
transact  business,  except  through  some  organ  who  collects 
the  sense  of  it,  and  communicates  that  sense  to  the  multi- 
tude for  acquiescence  or  rejection.  This  society  cannot  trans- 
act business  without  some  organ  of  commuuicaiion.  It  chooses 
a  clerk;  and  my  friend  Mr.  Hubbard  has  read  to  show,  that 
the  clerk  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with  other  members,  be- 
cause he  gets  no  pay  for  his  services.  That  is  all  his  authority. 
The  president  of  a  public  meeting  receives  no  pay:  but  does 
he  not  collect  and  pronounce  the  opinion  olT  the  meeting?  And 
who  does  that  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends.'^  I  care  not 
what  name  you  give  him.  Here^  in  the  language  of  the  Dis- 
cipline, they  wait  on  the  great  Head  of  the  church.  But  they 
must  have  an  organ  of  communication  and  decision,  and  that 
is  the  clerk  of  this  society.  What  say  the  witnesses?  When 
the  discussion  has  ceased,  the  clerk  makes  a  minute  of  what 
he  thinks  is  the  sense  of  the  meeting,  and  reads  it.  It  is  then 
subject  to  the  revision  and  control  of  the  meeting.  Your 


.292 


Trial  of  Friends 


honour,  silting  as  president  judge,  gives  your  decision,  as 
the  opinion  of  the  court;  and  yet  is  not  that  decision  subject 
to  the  revision  of  your  associates?  The  decision  is  communi- 
cated to  the  clerk,  and  when  the  minutes  are  read,  are  they 
not  subject  to  control  and  revision?  There  is  no  one  will  ques- 
tion it.  Will  it  then  be  said,  because  your  honour  has  entered 
a  decision,  and  it  is  subject  to  the  revision  of  the  court  of  which 
you  are  a  component  part,  therefore  the  court  has  no  head? 
The  dissimilarity  is  not  in  the  power  that  is  exercised  ;  it  is 
in  the  number  of  persons  employed.  If  I  were  to  indulge 
myself,  in  the  employment  of  terms  used  on  the  other  side,  I. 
would  say  that  the  assumption  of  the  other  side  is  ridiculous, 
supremely  ridiculous.  Their  own  instance,  which  they  cha- 
racterize as  orderly,  is  strikingly  illustrative  of  the  necessity 
of  having  in  all  meetings  some  organ  or  head.  They  tell  you 
that  which  will  not  stand  the  test  of  truth.  It  is  at  war  witlv 
the  whole  practice  of  the  society,  with  reason,  and  with  com- 
mon sense.  Do  they  not  tell  you,  in  another  breath,  that  there 
is  no  power  to  pronounce  the  judgment  of  the  meeting,  but  the 
clerk  ;  yet,  say  they,  he  has  no  more  power  than  any  body  else. 
Now.  how  supremely  ridiculous  it  would  be,  for  a  person  in  the 
organized  meeting  of  Ohio,  to  get  up  and  say,  the  sense  of  this 
meeting  is  so:  and  not  wait  for  the  clerk's  minute.  But  if  all 
are  equal,  and  the  clerk  has  no  more  power  than  any  other 
member,  then  it  would  be  perfectly  right  and  decoroxis.  Yet 
the  most  aged  of  those  Friends  on  the  opposite  line,  never 
knew  of  such  an  instance.  This  is  all  idle — it  is  worse  than 
idle:  it  is  to  pervert  the  interests  of  society  for  the  purposes 
of  a  parly.  Levi  Pickering,  who  testified  with  .great  moderation 
and  candour,  said,  that  the  clefk  was  the  only  person  known 
to  the  meeting,  who  should  gather  the  sense  of  the  meeting; 
and  that  this  occurrence  was  unlike  any  thing  ever  before  seen. 
I  am  not  sure  that  he  knows  any  thing  about  it:  but  as  he  is 
brought  by  the  counsel  on  the  other  side,  I  suppose  his  testi- 
mony will  not  be  disputed.  The  clerk,  then,  was  the  organ, 
according  to  this  evidence.  If  you  look  to  the  testimony  on 
our  side,  you  will  find  additional  light.  When  a  meeting  is 
uncertain  what  a  proposition  is,  Mr.  Bates,  whom  the  gentle- 
man sneeringly  calls  the  archbishop,  says, , it  is  the  business 
of  the  clerk  to  decide.  Is  it  not  so  in  every  other  assembly? 
If  a  person  rise  to  speak  upon  a  proposition  not  under  con- 
sideration, the  presiding  officer  calls  him  to  order.  Any  man 
may  call  him  to  order;  but  the  presiding  officer  is  to  deter- 
mine. So  it  is  with  the  clerk:  if  there  be  a  diiVerencc,  it  is  in 
words,  and  no  where  else.  Every  power  that  is  exercised  by 
the  presiding  officer  of  any  meeting,  is  exercised  by  the  clerk 
of  this  meeting:  and  superadded,  is  the  power  of  making  the 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


29S 


minutes  of  his  own  decisions,  and  pronouncing  them  to  the 
meeting. 

I  think  I  h^ve  shown,  notwithstanding  Mr.  Hubbard  has 
cut  off  the  head  of  our  case,  that  the  society  has  yet,  not  only 
a  head,  and  cleric,  but  it  has,  appurtenant  to  it,  a  meeting  of 
ministers  and  elders.  This  is  ameeting  which  exercises  various 
functions,  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial.  It  exercises 
power  during  the  recess  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  And  the 
Yearly  Meeting  has  now,  appurtenant  to  it,  another  thing, 
which,  the  gentleman  says,  has  brought  this  society  into 
all  its  differences — I  mean,  a  general  conference.  That  con- 
ference was  proposed  to  the  society  of  Friends  before  the 
division  in  1827.  Before  the  separation,  Ohio  Yearly  Meet- 
ing adopted  a  minute,  inviting  a  conference  from  all  the  other 
societies  in  the  world,  to  attend  their  meeting.  My  friend  Mr. 
Tappan  says,  it  was  a  combination  entered  into,  to  tyrannise 
over,  and  put  down  the  Hicksites.  He  uses  this,  as  an  in- 
stance to  prove  that  it  was  a  combination — that  there  were 
foreigners,  and  among  the  rest,  a  subject  of  John  Bull,  wha 
was  ready,  not  only  to  engage  in  fight,  but  in  prayer  to  the 
God  of  battles,  to  insure  a  victory.  If  he  had  looked  to  the 
minutes  of  the  Yearly  Meeting — if  he  had  looked  to  his  case, 
and  not  to  his  clients,  he  would  have  found  it  to  be  an  error. 
The  Hicksites  and  orthodox  were  united  in  1827.  They  were 
all  exercising  their  functions,  and  while  thus  united,  they  in- 
vited this  conference.  For  what?  To  put  down  the  Hicksites? 
To  exercise  a  tyranny  over  those  who  had  as  good  a  right  as 
the  orthodox,  who  are, par  excellence,  called  saints?  This  is  the 
language  used  towards  those  invited  by  both  parties.  They 
are  now  pronounced  a  combination,  who  have  confederated 
themselves  with  a  little  knot  of  Friends  here,  to  put  down,  and 
tyrannise  over,  those  members  of  the  society  who  are  crying- 
out  for  liberty  of  conscience.  Sir,  this  remark  is  gratuitous; 
it  is  unworthy  of  investigation,  in  this  case,  or  in  any  other. 
Whether  worthy  of  the  Hicksite  party — of  the  counsel  and 
their  employers,  is  not  for  me  to  say. 

Nothing  was  done  by  these  men,  here,  but  what  was  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  discipline  and  the  duties  which  de- 
volved upon  them.  I  shall,  by  and  by,  advert  to  the  testimony 
of  the  good  Mr.  Scholfield;  and  the  John  Bull,  Mr.  Shillitoe. 
What  did  they  do?  It  is  tried  to  make  us  believe,  that  they 
attended  and  entered  into  a  combination,  to  devise  ways  and 
means  to  organize  and  garrison  the  church,  to  exclude  those 
not  in  unity  with  them.  Judge  Tappan*  goes  so  far  as  to  say, 
that  tlve  proposition  was  made  by  Shillitoe,  and  agreed  to. 
Now,  I  say,  there  is  not  one  scintilla  of  evidence — not  one  wit- 
ness has  said  any  such  thing.  Not  the  good  Mr.  Scholfield, 
*  Formerly    Judge  in  Oliio. 

37 


'294  Trial  of  Friends 

even  his  reminiscrnce  would  not  carry  him  to  that  extent. 
On  whom  did  they  then  rely?  No  name  is  given.  The  gen- 
tlemen think  they  can  get  along,  without  naming  any  witness. 
A  combination,  indeedl  Men  unite  in  inviting  foreigners. 
They  had  an  undoubted  right  to  assemble  with  them;  for  all  in 
the  world  had  a  right  to  attend  this  meeting;  yet  when  they 
got  here,  having  left  their  homes,  regardless  of  weather  and 
roads,  and  come  up  to  this  meeting  and  joined  their  brethrenj 
why  then,  it  is  an  unholy  combination,  a  nest  of  hypocrites, 
endeavouring  to  exercise  tyranny  over  the  large  mass  of 
Quakers  in  the  United  States.  And  what  act  of  tyranny?  No 
act  has  appeared  here.  Have  they  proved  this  proposition? 
Not  at  all.  Unless  by  the  light  shed,  in  relation  to  Shillitoe's 
proposition,  at  Short  Creek  Monthly  Meeting.  Moreover, 
that  proposition  never  was  made.  I  care  not  who  asserted 
it;  the  proposition  was  never  made.  Those  have  testified 
who  were  present,  who  were  engaged,  and  who  have  the  re- 
cords and  minutes  of  the  meeting:  and  they  say,  that  nothing 
of  the  kind  happened.  Who  has  told  it?  A  man  says  he  was 
there;  they  not  knowing  that  he  was  of  the  other  side.  A  man 
who  could  so  far  forget  his  dignity,  as  to  go  to  a  meeting  of 
another  party,  to  get  what  all  eaves-droppers  get — that  which 
is  not  good  for  them — such  a  man  I  do  not  believe.  The  man 
who  is  mean  enough  to  descend  to  such  measures  to  obtain 
knowledge,  is  vile  enough  to  falsify  the  truth. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  ancient  doctrines  are  in  accordance 
with  the  views  of  the  party  denominated  Hicksites.  There  is 
much  more  authority  for  this,  than  for  some  of  their  asser- 
tions. 1  will  refer  to  the  same  collection  of  the  early  records 
of  the  society,  page  1 1.    [The  extract  could  not  be  found.] 

This  epistle  goes  on  describing  with  wonderful  accuracy  the 
party  now  existing,  in  which  it  bears  testimony  against  them, 
and  leaves  them  to  stand  or  fall  upon  their  own  might  and 
strength.  I  think  this  does  afford  much  stronger  testimony. 
The  parly  separated  themselves,  I  do  not  know  for  how  long 
a  time.  History  does  not  tell  us  that  they  endeavoured  to  en- 
ter the  meeting.  History  does  not  tell  us  that  they  reorga- 
nized in  a  column,  and  rushed  with  the  power  of  a  military 
wedge,  over  the  heads  of  ancient  Friends  assembled  at  the 
altar. 

It  has  been  said,  that  the  society  of  Friends,  or  the  orthodox, 
have  assumed  the  exercise  of  power,  not  conferred  on  them 
by  the  discipline  of  the  society;  that  they  exercise  tyranny, 
and  carry  it  into  operation  by  force,  and  strive  by  hypocrisy 
to  screen  its  purpose.  Before  I  proceed  to  examine  this  part 
of  the  case,  I  would  make  a  remark  upon  the  name  conferred 
on  these  Friends.  Though  no  doubt  accidentally  conferred,  in 
this  case,  as  in  others;  still  there  is  much  propriety  in  the  ap- 
plication.   The  party  who  adhere  to  the  ancient  doctrines, 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


295 


are  called  orthodox,  by  way  of  derision.  Who  are  the  ortho- 
dox? Those  of  the  true  faith.  Here,  the  term  orthodox  is 
rung  in  their  ears,  as  if  the  whole  burthen  of  offence  rested  in 
the  opprobrium  carried  in  the  name.  They  are  the  ones  in 
the  true  faith.  I  say  it  is  in  this  as  in  other  cases;  the  name 
selected  in  derision,  indicates  the  true  character  of  Friends. 
Those  who  are  its  leaders,  and  who  have  maintained  its  order, 
in  peace  and  purity,  are  sneeringly  called  orthodox,  by  way 
of  showing  that  they  have  no  right,  and  that  the  others  are 
those  who  maintain  and  hold  to  the  true  faith  and  purity. 
They  could  not  have  chosen  a  name  more  favourable.  They 
who  are  truly  orthodox  are  of  the  true  faith.  It  is  the  very 
thing  on  which  we  lay  the  foundation  of  our  claims.  If  we  do 
not  now  maintain  the  principles  of  the  society,  from  its  incep- 
tion down  to  the  present  time,  then  let  my  clients  be  trampled 
in  the  dust,  with  all  the  tyranny  that  designing  demagogues 
would  exercise,  if  they  once  possessed  the  power.  They  are 
the  true,  genuine  society  of  Friends,  deserving  the  name  or- 
thodox. 

We  have  assumed  power,  and  made  ourselves  tyrants;  by 
doing  what?  By  laying  down  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Con- 
cord. This  warrants  the  gentleman  in  heaping  abusive  epi- 
thets, till  he  has  exhausted  the  vocabulary  of  reproach,  on  those 
venerable  individuals  who  have  come  here,  to  testify  on  behalf 
of  the  state.  They  have  laid  down  the  meeting  of  Concord. 
Who  are  they,  that  have  done  this?  John  Street,  Ladd,  Tay- 
lor, and  Bates.  They  are  the  arch-hypocrites,  who  are  seeking 
all  the  property  and  power  of  the  society,  and  trampling  the 
Discipline  under  foot.  What  have  they  done?  Ladd  and 
others  were  deputed  by  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  or  the 
meeting  of  ministers  and  elders,  to  visit  the  different  Quar- 
terly and  Monthly  Meetings  in  the  Yearly  Meeting.  They 
saw  the  state  of  this  meeting,  and  have  attended  to  their  duty. 
Was  here  an  assumption  of  power?  Does  not  the  Discipline 
provide  for  it? 

(Here  Mr.  Wright  read  from  the  book  of  Discipline,  pages 
56  and  57.) 

I  may  be  told  that  these  passages  do  not,  in  direct  terms,  re- 
quire the  appointment  of  committees.  The  Meeting  for  Suf- 
ferings consists  of  46  members.  They  could  not  all  attend. 
They  have  hitherto  acted  through  the  intervention  of  com- 
mittees. It  is  manifest  from  their  records,  and  from  the  whole 
history  of  the  society.  They  have  appointed  committees  to 
wait  on  the  different  constituent  parts.  There  is  no  prohibi- 
tion. They  were  only  to  collect  information,  and  report  to  the 
meeting  for  its  action.  Benjamin  W.  Ladd  has  gone  forward 
in  discharge  of  that  duty,  and  therefore  he  is  an  arch-hypocrite, 
for  doing  what  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  required  him  to  do! 


2% 


Trial  of  Friends 


Now,  on  the  subject  of  abuse.  He  has  acquired  considerable 
information,  as  well  as  Bates;  and,  therefore,  they  are  coupled 
together,  for  the  abuse  of  those  who  are  envious.  But  what 
else.'*  Does  any  other  act  show  him  a  tyrant?  When  Isaac  James 
was  advancing,  filled  with  anger  and  fierce  with  rage,  over 
the  heads  of  those  who  filled  the  high  seats,  the  ministers  and 
aged  servants  of  the  meeting — Ladd  put  his  hand  out  against 
his  breast,  and  opposed  his  approach.  And  he  is  for  that 
called  a  tyrant,  an  arch-hypocrite,  by  counsel  who  never  use 
abuse  when  they  have  solid  argument.  What  else  has  he  done? 
He  believes  in  the  divinity  of  Christ;  and  therefore  he  is  to  be 
abused.  When  the  opposite  party  were  advancing,  so  that  no 
remonstrance  of  his  could  prevail,  he  retires  from  the  house> 
Does  this  constitute  tyranny?  If  there  is  any  thing  more  that 
he  has  done,  I  am  ignorant.  Even  my  friend  Mr.  Hubbard, 
who  is  very  cautious  never  to  say  any  thing  indecorous,  must 
sneer  a  little  at  Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  for  tyrannising  over  his 
brethren.  But  there  is  not  one  word,  that  fixes  upon  him 
even  the  shadow  of  tyranny.  Why,  then,  call  him  a  tyrant? 
Why,  if  they  can  excite  public  prejudice  against  the  most 
learned,  and  the  most  influential  members  of  the  society,  they 
think  they  will  carry  their  case  with  the  multitude,  if  they  fail 
with  the  court.  These  men  are  to  be  degraded,  and  rendered 
obnoxious  to  injurious  vituperation  out  door,  and  to  every  spe- 
cies of  abuse.  I  do  not  suppose  that  Mr.  Hubbard  designed 
to  produce  that  effect,  or  that  Judge  Tappan  designed  itj  yet  I 
do  believe  that  such  is  the  tendency  of  their  arguments.  And 
I  do  believe,  there  are  some  of  the  prompters  behind  the  scene, 
who  also  know  it,  and  who  desired  it  to  produce  that  effect. 

Well,  here  are  Mr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Street.  Why,  there  are 
not  men  to  be  found  in  the  community  who  walk  with  more 
humility.  Mr.  Taylor  a  tyrant!  Mr.  Hubbard  could  not  go 
that.  He  had  great  respect  for  him.  He  thought  him  an 
honest  man,  but  that  he  was  made  a  fool  of  by  the  archbishop. 
He  has  a  great  respect  for  him,  because  he  is  too  big  a  fool  to 
act  for  himself!  This  may  answer  where  these  men  are  not 
known.  But  it  will  not  affect  them,  where  they  are  known. 
There  is,  in  the  daily  walk  of  all  of  them,  a  beauty  which  is 
calculated  to  excite  the  envy  of  those  who  know  themselves  to 
be  beneath  them,  and  who  know  that  they  can  never  attain 
their  height.  Unless  we  suppose,  that  none  of  the  feelings  of 
human  action  remain  in  bosoms  that  are  uninfluenced  by  re- 
ligion, we  should  not  feel  surprised  that  this  malignity  mani- 
fests itself  towards  these  individuals.  It  is  as  natural  as  life. 
But  it  falls  harmless  at  their  feet.  It  will  not  affect  them  where 
they  are  known.  It  cannot  affect  them  where  they  are  not 
known;  for  the  antidote  goes  forward,  with  the  poison.  Look 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


297 


at  their  testimony.  Do  you  find  there,  a  zeal,  which,  in  the 
language  of  Mr.  Hubbard,  runs  ahead  of  their  discretion?  A 
desire  to  be  forward,  to  force  themselves?  If  you  do,  you  have 
the  astuteness  to  find  that,  which,  I  venture  to  say,  never  had 
root  in  their  hearts. 

I  would,  with  great  satisfaction,  contrast  Elisha  Bates, 
Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  and  Jonathan  Taylor,  with  other  persons 
who  have  testified  here — with  David  Scholfield,  Mr.  Tolerton, 
and  Mr.  Magar,  on  the  other  side.  The  good  Mr.  Scholfield! 
I  have  known  him  for  many  years,  and  have  known  him  to 
possess  extraordinary  zeal.  I  do  not  say  that  he  is  not  honestj 
but  I  will  say  this,  that  he  came  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  with  a 
determination  to  trample  under  foot  the  discipline  of  the 
meeting  to  which  he  belonged.  That  we  see,  because  it  comes 
from  his  own  mouth;  and  out  of  his  own  mouth  I  will  convict 
him.  He  was  disowned,  and,  by  the  discipline  of  the  society, 
had  no  right  to  attend.  Yet,  what  do  we  find?  At  8  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  such  is  his  zeal,  at  Mount  Pleasant,  that  he 
is  seeking  to  find  his  way  into  the  house,  where  he  knew 
that  the  discipline  forbid  him  to  enter.  He  is  put  up  in  con- 
trast with  Ladd,  Elisha  Bates,  and  Taylor.  He  was  all  meek- 
ness and  charity;  not  the  least  hypocrisy  about  him  in  the 
world:  and  I  believe  he  felt  most  "  awfully" — lest  he  should 
say  something,  which  might,  by  possibility,  make  against  the 
side  to  which  he  belonged.  I  do  not  believe  that  he  was  alarm- 
ed, lest  what  he  should  say  might  be  untrue;  but  I  believe  it 
was,  lest  he  should  let  slip  something  which  might  make 
against  hi«  party. 

Let  us  leave  him,  then,  with  his  disownment  upon  his  back, 
and  with  Mr.  Tappan's  remarks,  and  proceed  to  Mr.  Tolerton, 
who  is  from  the  same  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meeting.  From 
Mr.  Tolerton  not  a  word  of  truth  could  come,  without  his 
twitching  and  being  flushed  with  anger.  He  was  hardly  able 
to  restrain  his  feelings.  He  is  from  the  same  Monthly  Meet- 
ing with  the  good  Mr.  Scholfield.  He  could  unite  in  set- 
ting up  a  new  Monthly  Meeting,  and  could  say,  when  there 
were  but  five  persons  united  in  that  Monthly  Meeting,  that  it 
was  the  old  Monthly  Meeting,  having  the  rights  and  immu- 
nities of  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Salem.  And  where  was  the 
house,  the  records,  and  every  thing  belonging  to  a  Monthly 
Meeting,  which  identified  it,  and  gave  it  a  name  and  charac- 
ter, when  he  went  away,  and  attached  himself  to  New  Garden? 
He  "was  certificated  back"  to  Salem,  and  there  united,  with 
four  other  persons,  to  set  up  a  new  meeting  at  Salem! 

What  shall  I  do  with  Mr.  Magar?  I  do  think  he  has  had 
pam  enough  already.  I  never  saw  a  witness  at  the  stand  more 
pained  to  get  out  the  great  truth.  No,  I  never  saw  a  snake 
more  pained  in  swallowing  a  toad,  than  he  was  in  getting  out 


298 


Trial  of  Friends 


the  truth.  As  for  Mr.  Magar,  why,  he  knew  nothing,  nor 
how  to  tell  any  thing,  without  turning  round  and  coaxing  him- 
self. He]  did  not  understand  the  simplest  question,  without 
repeating  it  to  him  a  dozen  times.  And  I  do  think  all  that 
was  said  by  him,  would  not  weigh  a  feather.  Now,  I  have 
given  the  gentlemen  an  account  of  the  three  witnesses ;  and 
they  are  welcome,  and  I  give  them  liberty,  to  contrast  them 
with  the  persons  abused  on  the  other  side.  If  they  had  for- 
borne their  attack,  whatever  I  might  have  thought,  I  would 
have  said  little  of  these  persons. 

We  are  charged  with  tyranny,  with  an  assumption  of  power, 
in  laying  down  Concord  Monthly  Meeting.  And  here,  Mr. 
Hubbard,  with  a  view  to  overwhelm  us  with  mist  and  smoke, 
about  this  business,  reads  a  book  about  laying  down  a  Month- 
ly Meeting.  And  what  does  it  say?  Mr.  Griffith,  being  moved 
to  go  abroad  in  the  ministry,  travelled  into  Europe,  and  visit- 
ed a  number  of  societies,  and  found  one  like  those  of  Elias 
Hicks.  The  Quarter  had  tried  for  a  considerable  time,  to 
bring  them  to  voluntary  submission.  The  superior  meeting 
had  forborne  to  exercise  its  power  over  them,  till  they  got  the 
consent  of  the  members  to  be  laid  down.  But  they  at  length 
generally  yielded.  (See  Griffith's  Journal,  314;  or  236  of  this 
book.)  Now,  the  gentlemen  say,  this  is  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  society,  where  any  hold  out,  or  feel  uneasy  with 
the  measure — it  cannot  be  done  without  the  agreement  of 
the  members.  They  at  length  yielded,  and  the  meeting  was 
laid  down.  Carry  this  along,  and  compare  it  with  Concord. 
It  was  laid  down  in  the  Quarterly  Meeting.  When  the  pro- 
position was  made,  there  was  a  general  acquiescence  in  it. 
The  representatives,  with  one  single  exception,  united.  Was 
that  not  a  general  accordance?  Yet  it  is  said  to  be  against  their 
consent;  it  is  said  there  is  no  power  without  consent.  I  think 
this  not  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Discipline.  [Here  Mr. 
Wright  referred  to  page  28  of  Discipline.  See  235th  page  of 
this  book.] 

If  this  language  mean  any  thing,  it  means  that  they  are  in  a 
state  of  subordination.  If  the  supervisors  cannot  act  over 
them,  how  are  they  to  act?  The  Discipline  is  silent.  And  as 
the  Discipline  imposes  no  restraint,  the  power  is  granted. 
Look  at  the  next  paragraph. 

"  No  Quarterly  Meeting  should  be  set  up  or  laid  down  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Yearly;  no  Monthly  Meeting  without  the  consent  of  the  Quarterly 
Meeting,"  &c. 

The  gentleman  (Mr.  Hubbard)  read  this  as  if  reversed. 

No  Monthly  Meeting  should  be  laid  down  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Quarterly.  I  pray  you,  was  not  the  Quarterly 
Meeting  consenting  to  lay  down  Concord?    I  should  not  sup- 


■ 


at  Steubenville.  Ohio. 


299 


pose,  that  counsel  so  learned  would  fall  into  such  errors  as 
this.  This  clause  does  not  apply  to  laying  down  Preparative 
Meetings,  within  the  bounds  of  a  Monthly  Meeting.  It  does 
not  apply  to  that  subject.  The  Discipline  goes  on  to  say, 
that  no  Preparative  Meeting,  or  other  meeting  for  business  or 
worship,  shall  be  set  up  or  laid  down,  until  application  to  the 
Monthly  Meeting  be  first  made,  and  when  approved  there,  the 
consent  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  is  to  be  also  obtained.  You 
shall  not  set  up  within  the  limits  of  a  Monthly  Meeting,  any 
Preparative  or  other  meeting  for  worship,  without  applica- 
tion to  the  Monthly  Meeting.  But  that  does  not  go  back  and 
attach  itself  to  the  other  clause,  so  as  to  require  the  consent 
of  the  Monthly  Meeting,  to  the  setting  up  or  laying  down  of 
the  Monthly  Meeting.  As  well  might  you  say  that  no  member 
shall  be  disowned  without  his  own  consent.  If  an  individual 
sets  up  a  meeting  for  worship  under  Roman  Catholic  disci- 
pline, subordinate  to  the  Monthly  Meeting  to  which  he  belongs, 
the  Monthly  Meeting  must  have  power,  not  for  laying  down 
only,  but  for  testifying  a  disunity.  Those  joining  in  Catholic 
worship  have  no  right  to  unite  with  them  in  the  Discipline^ 
because  they  ought  to  have  different  objects  in  view.  Now, 
would  any  one  say,  that  in  such  a  case,  it  would  be  held  rea- 
sonable, that  the  consent  of  the  Roman  Catholic  meeting  should 
be  sufficient  to  establish  itself,  or  if  the  Catholics  should  get 
a  majority  within  the  Monthly  Meeting,  that  there  is  no  power 
in  the  superior  to  protect  themselves  from  those  who  deny 
their  faith  and  worship.''  It  must,  ex  necessitate  rei,  have  the 
power.  You  shall  not  set  up  a  Monthly  Meeting  without  con- 
sent of  the  Quarterly,  as  the  one  controlling  the  subordinate, 
the  Monthly.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  it  should  have 
cognizance  of  the  inferior  meeting  set  up,  to  know  its  limits, 
so  that  if  there  is  any  thing  to  complain  of,  it  may  be  known 
where  to  direct  the  complaint.  Therefore,  you  cannot  set  up 
a  Monthly,  without  consent  of  the  Quarterly.  The  language 
is  not,  you  shan't  set  up  without  consent  of  the  Monthly.  It 
is  absurd,  that  a  thing  not  yet  in  existence,  should  require 
its  own  assent  to  be  set  up.  The  reasoning  upon  this  sub- 
ject reminded  me  of  an  anecdote  upon  the  bench,  which  I 
mention,  not  out  of  the  slightest  disrespect.  When  Mr.  Upde- 
graff  went  on  to  draw  his  conclusions,  it  reminded  me  of  a 
case  in  a  court  of  justice,  where  one  judge,  after  examining 
a  paper,  handed  it  to  the  other,  saying,  "  you  will  perceive 
there  is  a  syllogism  in  this  case."  The  reply  was;  "I  dis- 
covered the  silly^  but  never  have  been  able  to  discover  the 
gism."  I  think  they  have,  in  this  case,  manifested  the  silly, 
but  not  the  gism. 

No  Monthly  Meeting,  Avithout  consent  of  the  Quarterly, 
shall  be  laid  down.    That  Quarter,  having  the  supervision 


300 


Trial  of  Friends 


and  jurisdiction,  did,  by  its  solemn  act,  lay  it  down.  The  con- 
sent of  the  Quarter  was  had  to  that  act — the  Discipline  acts 
directly  upon  it,  and  this  express  provision  of  the  Discipline 
is  sought  to  be  thrown  aside,  by  the  passage  read  from  the 
travels  of  John  Griffith.  There  can  be  no  act  properly  called 
an  assumption  of  power,  in  determining  to  lay  down  this 
Monthly  Meeting. 

The  gentlemen  are  impressed  with  the  idea,  that  they  should 
have  carried  it  up  to  the  Yearly  Meeting.  Mr.  Tappan  was 
so  far  pressed  with  it,  that  he  found  occasion  to  interpose  an 
apology,  by  assuming  that  there  was  no  other  way  of  appeal, 
but  to  attend  at  the  Yearly  Meeting,  to  bring  forward  this 
subject  for  the  revision  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  This  is  the 
proposition  and  the  application ;  but  how  foreign  is  the  fact  in 
the  case.  But  it  is  said  that  a  meeting,  in  its  congregated 
capacity,  cannot  appeal;  that  a  Monthly  Meeting,  as  such,  has 
no  power  to  appeal.  I  ask,  why  not?  Is  there  a  prohibition 
in  the  book?  No.  But,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  a  provision 
for  an  appeal,  in  the  8th  page.  But  I  am  told,  that  this  is  an 
appeal  from  a  Monthly  Meeting  to  the  supervisory  power. 
The  appeal  from  the  meeting  in  a  subordinate  state  is  expressly 
provided  for;  and  it  is  provided,  that  when  an  examination 
into  the  proceedings  takes  place,  they  shall  furnish  records, 
though  it  is  not  expressly  said  that  a  meeting  may  appeal. 
But  it  says  that  any  one  may  appeal. 

Judge  Tappan  has  carried  his  clients  forward  to  the  Yearly- 
Meeting,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  up  this  business.  It  i» 
said,  that  the  right  of  appeal  provided,  is  for  individuals,  and 
not  for  the  aggregate  mass.  Now,  I  apprehend,  that,  if  the 
law,  recognising  supervisory  power,  requires  of  the  subordi- 
nates to  make  a  copy  of  its  records,  and  carry  them  to  the 
superior,  the  right  of  appeal  is  perfect.  And  if  the  appeal 
extends  only  to  those  under  individual  grievances,  without 
subjecting  the  party  to  be  trammelled  by  any  particular  rules, 
yet  there  must  be  an  appeal,  and  notification,  that  the  appeal 
will  be  entered,  and  that  the  superior  meeting  will  be  called 
on  to  revise:  and  I  care  not  whether  it  be  an  individual  or 
otherwise.  The  general  character  of  the  supervisory  power 
of  the  superior  meeting,  and  subordination  of  the  others,  is 
provided  for  in  the  28th  page  of  the  Discipline.  To  what  end, 
I  pray  you,  would  the  legislative  body  have  provided  for  re- 
vising the  proceedings  of  subordinate  meetings,  if  it  were  not, 
that  they  have  the  power  of  bringing  the  question  before 
them?  If  any  thing  else  be  wanted,  here  we  have  it.  [Here 
Mr.  Wright  read  from  the  28th  page  of  the  Discipline.  See 
page  235  of  this  work.]  And  yet  it  is  said,  there  is  no  right 
of  appeal;  and  we  are  told,  that  the  supervisory  power  is  nu- 
gatory.   I  do  not  believe  in  such  doctrine  as  this;,  that  the 


SI 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


SOI 


Yearly  Meeting'  of  Ohio  is  subject  to  be  tainted  by  the  decision 
of  men  who  differ  from  them,  in  faith  and  belief,  and  who  say, 
that  the  act  of  the  subordinate  tribunal  is  null  and  void,  be- 
cause of  an  omission  to  make,  by  special  legislative  provision^ 
a  rule  for  carrying  up  the  appeal. 

If  I  am  correct  in  this,  the  whole  weight  of  argument  on 
the  other  side,  falls  prostrate  to  the  ground.  There  was  a  de- 
cision of  the  Quarterly  Meeting — it  may  be  erroneous.  It 
may  have  carried  into  it  the  seeds  of  tyranny.  It  may  have 
contained  within  itself  that  which  should  have  called  on  the 
superior  meetings  in  imperative  language,  to  reverse  that 
proceeding;  yet  it  stands  unreversed  and  unrevised,  on  the  mi- 
nutes of  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  where  it  possesses  all  its 
obligatory  force  in  operating  on  the  membei's.  I  agree,  and 
most  heartily,  that  if  an  inferior  tribunal,  ecclesiastical  or 
temporal,  proceeds  to  judge  a  case  without  its  jurisdiction, 
the  judgment  rendered  is  a  nullity.  The  party  sought  to  be 
operated  on  by  it,  need  not  regard  it,  because  it  is  a  nullity. 

But  it  is  shown  by  the  discipline,  that  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing had  power  and  control  over  the  Monthly.  The  Monthly 
Meeting  may  be  laid  down  by  consent  of  the  Quarterly,  either 
by  the  exertion  of  the  power  of  the  Quarterly  upon  its  sole  dis- 
cretion; or  by  the  exertion  of  it,  upon  the  expressed  desire  of 
a  Monthly  Meeting,  seeking  to  be  laid  down.  If  I  have  con- 
strued this  matter  rightly,  then  this  judgment  of  the  meeting 
stands  good — there  is  tio  assumption  of  power.  We  have  in- 
stances cited  to  us  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  induce  us  to 
believe  them  conclusive — for  instance,  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing in  Baltimore  laying  down  a  Monthly.  But  let  us  look  at 
that  case.  It  is  brought  forward  to  show  that  we  had  no 
power  to  lay  down  Concord  Monthly  Meeting.  A  Monthly 
Meeting  sought  to  maintain  a  separate  interest  in  property, 
and  the  Quarterly  sought  to  reconcile  all  the  brethren  in  so- 
ciety: they  had  tried  ineffectually  to  do  this.  Each  party 
maintained  themselves  in  the  power  which  they  had,  or  sup- 
posed they  had.  In  that  state  of  the  question,  the  Quarterly 
applied  to  the  Yearly,  for  advice.  The  Yearly  Meeting  said 
the  Quarter  had  power  to  lay  down  the  Monthly  Meeting,  and 
advised  them,  that  unless  the  Monthly  complied  with  the  in- 
structions of  its  superior,  the  Quarter  should  proceed  to  lay  it 
down.  Such  was  the  advice — it  recognised  the  power  of  the 
Quarterly,  and  the  Monthly  Meeting  was  laid  down.  And, 
if  Hamilton's  testimony  is  worthy  of  credit,  it  was  by  the 
power  which  the  Quarterly  Meeting  had;  for  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing did  not  interfere  further  than  to  give  advice.  The  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Baltimore  had  determined,  as  I  have  determined, 
that  the  Quarterly,  had  power  to  lay  down  a  Monthly  Meeting, 
38 


302 


Ti  iiil  ijf  t'rieiith 


and  that  without  their  consentj  and  the  testimony  of  advice 
was  given,  so  to  proceed. 

Againj  this  part  of  the  discipline  never  could  be  maintained 
or  carried  into  execution  on  any  other  construction:  for  you 
never  can  get  the  consent  of  the  power  which  you  wish  to  an- 
nul. You  can  disunite  yourselves  from  them  by  disownments; 
but  the  censure  of  the  church,  called  the  society  of  Friends, 
operates  only  admonitorily.  It  works  by  way  of  admonition,  to 
disownment.  It  undertakes  to  impose  no  pecuniary  penalty. 
If  you  set  up  a  faith,  foreign  to  the  faith  which  the  church  ac- 
knowledges, you  must  go  from  our  union,  yqu  are  no  longer 
one  of  us.  You  are  not  in  unity  with  us.  The  power  of 
churches  is  limited  to  this.  They  must  ahvays  be  limited 
when  church  and  state  are  not  connected.  And  I  hope  we 
never  shall  arrive  at  the  day  in  this  country,  when  they  will 
be  connected.  The  whole  church  history,  in  all  its  forms, 
shows  no  instance,  where  they  have  not  been  connected,  of  any 
pecuniary  mulct  imposed,  for  worshipping  with  those  not  in 
unity  with  the  church.  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  enlarge  upon 
this  subject.  I  think  the  fact  of  power  in  the  Quarterly,  is 
indubitably  established,  by  the  nature  of  the  discipline. 

Well,  we  have  been  guilty  of  an  assumption  of  power  in  an- 
other instance,  in  relation  to  that  false  and  forged  documentj 
which  was  thought  to  be,  to  use  the  language  of  the  opposite 
counsel,  crammed  down  the  throats  of  the  Hicksites.  Well, 
what  is  this  testimony  from  Indiana?  '  It  is  in  evidence,  that 
it  is  a  testimony  against  certain  errors  in  the  land,  which  have 
taken  root,  and  deep  root,  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  over  which 
this  committee  preside.  It  is  sent  from  the  Yearly  Meeting 
of  Indiana  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio — to  the  members  of 
the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio,  denominated  the  Meeting  for  Suf- 
ferings. They  had  the  power  of  publishing  granted  to  them: 
they  had  the  right  of  publishing  this.  They  exercised  this 
power  during  the  recess  of  the  Yearly  Meeting:  and  they  de- 
termined further,  that  they  would  send  it  to  the  Quarterly  and 
Monthly  Meetings  with  a  testimony  of  advice.  [Here  Mr. 
Wright  referred  to  the  testimony  from  the  Meeting  for  Suffer- 
ings.] Well,  if  this  be  an  act  of  tyranny,  it  is  the  most  hum- 
ble and  unassuming  ever  witnessed.  Does  it  seek  to  cram  any 
thing  down  the  Hicksites,  or  any  other  people?  It  does  not. 
It  is  earnestly  recommended  to  the  serious  attention  of  the 
members  of  the  society.  Suppose  it  were  false.  Suppose  its 
arrangement  were  unfair.  Did  it  force  upon  the  people  doc- 
trines which  they  disbelieve?  Does  it  seek  or  require  of  them 
a  subscription  to  this,  as  an  article  of  faith?  It  does  no  such 
thing.  It  gives  advice  in  a  spirit  of  brotherly  love  and  affec- 
tion, to  the  different  meetings  within  their  Yearly  Meeting.  And 


ul  Sleubenville,  Ohio. 


303 


in  that  advice  it  earnestly  exhorts  all  those  who  seek  after  truth 
to  read  it,  diligently  and  seriously:  not  to  believe  it,  without 
they  do  believe  it.  Here  we  are  told,  that  it  originated  all 
this  disturbance:  that  it  is  an  act  of  tyranny,  enforcing  upon 
the  society  that  which  is  forged  and  false.  If  this  be  tyranny, 
then  I  ask,  what  is  the  lawful  exercise  of  power?  If  this  be 
tyranny,  then  what  is  advice?  If  this  be  called  cramming, 
then'what  was  that  rush  that  went  into  the  meeting  house, 
and  forced  the  members  from  their  places? 

But  it  is  false,  says  the  gentleman:  it  is  forged.  He  gives 
himself  ^reat  credit  for  not  saying  what  he  says:  yet  it  would 
puzzle  him  or  his  associate  counsel,  Mr.  Hubbard,  to  find  out 
where  the  falsehoods  are.  They  speak  of  a  quotation,  said  to 
be  made  in  this  testimony,  which  they  say  is  false.  -  The  writer 
has  quoted,  from  memory,  the  passage  from  the  Berean:  "In 
vain  does  any  man  quote  the  scriptures  as  authority  for  his  opi- 
nions;" which  the  epistle  quotes  thus:  "In  vain  does  any  man 
quote  the  scj'iptures  as  authority  to  maintain  his  opinions." 
Your  honour  sees  the  difference.  There  is  no  difference  in 
the  substance,  as  to  citing  scripture  for  his  opinions.  There 
could  be  no  other  meaning  attached  to  it.  Again,  the  gentle- 
man says  that  the  latter  member  of  the  sentence  is  left  out: 
viz.  "for  if  they  have  not  been  immediately  revealed  to  his 
own  mind,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  deserve  no  better  name, 
as  it  respects  him,  than  speculations."  Does  that  help  the 
case?  If  the  scriptures  of  truth  have  not  been  specially  re- 
vealed to  a  man,  they  deserve  no  better  name  to  him  than  spe- 
culations! If  I  had  been  drawing  up  the  Indiana  testimony, 
I  should  have  quoted  that.  Sir,  are  the  scriptures  of  truth 
to  take  the  character  of  speculations?  to  take  no  authority,. be- 
cause they  have  not  been  specially  revealed  to  every  Hicksite? 
I  place  not  the  scriptures  of  truth  on  such  a  foundation  as  that. 
They  are  revealed  for  our  use;  if  not  to  us,  individually, 
who  arc  to  have  the  benefit  of  them?  I  do  not  think  it  neces- 
sary to  look  to  any  thing  further  on  this  subject,  but  will  re- 
mark, that,  when  Mr.  Hubbard  and  Mr.  Tappan  took  occa- 
sion to  pronounce  upOti  this  paper,  that  it  was  unequivocally 
false  and  forged,  containing  a  testimony  of  lies,  the  promulga- 
tion of  which  is  tyranny  on  the  part  of  those  who  issued  if, 
they  show  that  they  have  assumed  a  position  which  they  can- 
not maintain;  as  Mr.  Tappan  did  also  in  relation  to  cramming 
it  down  the  throats  of  the  Hicksites.  Yet  this  book  or  testi- 
mony, has  been  held  up  as  the  origin  of  the  qiiariel.  My 
friend  has  been  engaged  in  setting  it  before  you  in  an  unwar- 
rantable manner. 

We  have  been  asked,  here,  to  show  what  there  is  in  the-  doc- 
trines of  Elias  Hicks  that  militates  against  the  doctrines  of 
the  society  of  Friends,  ftlr.  Goodnow  said  he  could  not  swal- 


304 


Trial  of  FrimJs 


low  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks. — I  can  say,  that  he  is  a  Deist, 
and  that  his  doctrines  are  deistical,  if  deism  consists  in  a  de- 
nial of  the  divinity  of  Christ. 

Court  adjourned  till  9  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Tuesday,  October  2^th,  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 

Mr.  Wright,  in  continuation. — At  the  time  the  court  adjourn- 
ed, I  was  proceeding  to  answer  the  challenge  which  was  thrown 
out  on  the  other  side;  to  show,  that,  from  the  doctrines  and 
public  discourses  of  Elias  Hicks,  he  maintains  what  I  under- 
stand to  be  deism.  And  to  vindicate  and  support  this  much 
abused  and  vilified  testimony  of  Indiana,  I  will  read  from  the 
book  of  Sermons. 

"  Who  was  his  Father?  He  was  begotten  of  God.  We  cannot  suppose 
that  it  was  the  outward  body  of  flesh  and  blood  that  was  begotten  of  God, 
but  a  birth  of  the  spiritual  life  in  the  soul.  We  must  apply  it  internally 
and  spiritually.  For  nothing  can  be  a  Son  of  God,  but  that  which  is  Spirit; 
and  nothing  but  the  soul  of  man  is  a  recipient  for  the  light  and  Spirit  of 
God.  Therefore,  nothing  can  be  a  Son  of  God,  but  that  which  is  immortal 
and  invisible.  Nothing  visible  can  be  a  Son  of  God.  Every  visible  thing 
must  come  to  an  end,  and  we  must  know  the  mortality  of  it.  Flesh  and 
blood  cannot  enter  into  heaven.  By  the  analogy  of  reason.  Spirit  cannot 
beget  a  material  body,  because  the  thing  begotten  must  be  of  the  same  na- 
ture with  its  father.  Spirit  cannot  beget  any  thing  but  Spirit;  it  cannot 
beget  flesh  and  blood — No,  my  friends,  it  is  impossible." — (Hicks'  Sermom, 
1825  ed.  p.  10  &  11.) 

"  So,  here,  we  see  Jesus  made  lower  than  the  angels,  on  account  of  his 
suffering  death.  He  was  tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are.  |;Now  how  could 
he  be  tempted  if  he  had  been  flxed  in  a  state  of  perfection,  in  which  he 
could  not  turn  aside?  Can  you  suppose,  as  rational  beings,  that  such  a  be- 
ing could  be  tempted?  No,  not  any  more  than  God  Almighty  could  be 
tempted.  Perfection  is  perfection,  and  cannot  be  tempted.  It  is  impossi- 
ble. And  here  it  is  proved  to  a  demonstration,  that  he  came  to  be  an  exam- 
ple to  the  children  of  men;  a  great  High  Priest  and  teacher,  in  those  things 
which  concern  the  salvation  of  the  children  of  men.  And  here  he  did  his 
office,  as  a  great  High  Priest  of  the  Jewish  covenant,  in  that  outward  dis- 
pensation, in  which  he  was  limited  to  the  Jewish  people  as  a  child  of  Abra- 
ham; to  sum  up  all  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  by  faithfulness  to  it." — 
(Hicks'  Sermons,  1825  ed.  p.  253.) 

"  Therefore,  he  told  his  disciples,  "  It  is  expedient  for  you,  that  I  go 
away,  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  comforter  will  not  come."  He  speaks  no- 
thing but  the  truth:  for  so  long  as  the  Jews  had  him  to  look  at,  they  never 
could  rise  any  higher — while  he  was  bodily  with  them.  That  part  must  be 
entirely  taken  away.  It  must  be  dissolved,  and  be  so  no  more.  We  must 
have  no  remembrance  of  it;  because,  if  we  did  worship  it,  it  would  be  the 
worship  of  an  image." — (Hicks'  Sermons,  1825  ed.  p.  261.) 

"  For,  as  I  have  observed,  we  are  not  now  to  look  to  an  outward  law,  for 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  last  dispensation  of  God  to  the  children  of  men, 
which  is,  to  gather  all  souls  to  himself,  that  he  may  have  communion  with 
them,  without  any  thing  intermediate,  as  he  had  with  our  first  parents. 
This  was  their  condition — there  was  then  no  mediator  between  God  and 
■man;  for  there  was  no  necessity  for  it." — (Quaker,  vol.  4,  p.  21.)  . 

"I  cannot  help  you  on  your  way,  only  to  recommend  you  to  the  right 


ai  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


305 


mea.ni,  which  is  the  light  in  your  own  souls,  and  here  I  must  leave  you. 
And  that  has  been  tlie  case  with  all  the  ministers,  that  the  Lord  has  sent 
into  the  earth,  even  his  beloved  Son." — {Quaker,  vol.  4,  p.  26.) 

"  It  wont  do  to  look  back  to  him  as  an  outward  man,  because  the  true 
Saviour  never  was  to  be  seen  in  an  outward  way;  but  we  must  look  forward 
to  that  which  is  spiritual,  to  '  Christ  within,  the  hope  of  glory.'  It  speaks 
nothing  of  Christ  without,  tlie  hope  of  glory;  and  for  us  to  go  to  the  learned 
of  the  world,  to  translate  these  doctrines,  what  folly,  when  the  light  of  truth 
in  our  own  hearts  will  interpret  them  better  than  all  the  learned  men  in 
the  world.  Indeed,  how  can  they  do  it,  since  they  deny  revelation,  thus 
taking  the  effect  for  the  cause;  what  an  inconsistencv." — (Quaker,  vol.  4, 
p.  48.) 

"  What  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  where  is  he  ?  Do  the  professors  of  Chris- 
tianity think  that  that  Jesus,  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  is  the  only  Son  of 
God,  that  can  give  us  a  knowledge  of  the  Father?  They  must  be  dark  in- 
deed— he  can  do  nothing  for  any  of  us.  It  is  nothing  but  the  birth  of  God 
in  the  soul  that  can  give  us  any  knowledge  of  God — it  was  the  birth  of  God 
in  Jesus,  that  light  and  life  that  was  in  him,  that  revealed  tl>e  Father  in 
him  and  to  him." — (Quaker,  vol.  4,  p.  64.) 

"  Here  we  learn  that  in  his  external  manifestation,  he  was  not  truly  and 
properly  a  Saviour  of  souls;  for  he  had  been  born  and  had  lived  under  the 
shadowy  dispensation,  which  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  was  nothing 
but  a  figure,  as  it  respects  the  soul  and  its  salvation.  He  was  an  external 
Saviour  to  the  Israelites,  and  to  the  Israelites  only,  except  in  an  instance  or 
two.  He  saved  them  from  their  pollutions,  and  their  diseases  of  various 
kinds  that  attended  them;  such  as  the  leprosy,  blindness,  deafness." — 
(Quaker,  vol.  4,  p.  7'4.) 

"Jesus  Christ,  the  Savioui-  of  the  soul,  never  was  seen  by  the  eyes  of 
•men,  and  for  ever  will  be  the  same  power  of  God,  and  same  divine  anoint- 
ing with  which  Jesus  was  anointed." — (Quaker,  vol.  4,  p.  84.) 

For  instance,  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  of  our  being  made  holy 
by  the  righteousness  of  another!  Now  can  any  rational  being — any  man  or 
woman  believe  in  such  doctrines  as  these." — (Quaker,  vol.  4.  p.  137.) 

"  And  what  is  Christ  the  true  Saviour'  Nothing  else,  and  never  was  any 
thing  else,  in  regard  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  but  this  light  and  life  of 
God  in  the  soul,  which  comprehends  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God." — 
(Quaker,  vol.  4,  p.  234.) 

There  is  one  other  extract  from  Elias  Hicks,  which  I  will 
read  for  the  benefit  of  the  counsel. 

"  Oh!  that  men  of  science  might  be  aware  what  a  curse  they  are  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth;  what  a  great  curse.  But  tliey  will  not  believe  it 
till  they  turn  to  this  comforter — this  Spirit  of  Truth,  that  leads  into  all 
truth."— (Hicks'  Sermons,  1825  ed.  p.  53.) 

After  looking  to  these  extracts,  I  think  we  shall  see,  tliat  we 
have  not  gone  too  far.  I  do  not  wish  it  to  be  understood,  that 
I  think  all  those  who  follow  Elias  Hicks,  entertain  the  same 
notions  that  he  does,  or  that  they  entertain  the  belief  that  he  is 
a  deist.  1  believe,  if  we  go  through  the  book,  we  shall  find  the 
same  sentiments,  covered  with  a  species  of  clothing,  to  blind 
the  understanding,  till  persons  shall  be  drawn  sufficiently  to 
carry  his  doctrines  into  execution.  I  have  thought  proper  to 
refer  to  this,  to  vindicate  the  testimony  from  Indiana,  which 
>ias  been  so  reviled  and  abused^  and  set  forth  by  tlue  opposite 


306 


1  ruil  of  Friends 


counsel  as  the  origin  and  root  of  evil — ol  the  quarrel  which 
has  taken  place  in  this,  church.  This  outraged  document  has 
been  represented  as  a  palpable  falsehood  and  forgery — that 
it  was  intended,  to  aid  in  carrying  into  execution  the  designs 
of  the  orthodox  party,  in  tyrannising  over  their  fellows.  I  will 
read  from  Evans'  Exposition  the  following  passages. 

"  George  Whitehead  being  questioned  by  a  priest  as  to  his  belief  in  the 
Trinity,  gives  this  reply: — 

"  I  answered  him  in  terms,  in  terms  of  Holy  Scripture,  viz.  That  I  really 
own  and  believe  the  Father,  tlie  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  the  three 
which  bear  record  in  Heaven;  the  Father,  the  Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  these  Three  are  One,  according  to  the  docti'ine  of  John  the  Evangelist. 
1  John  v.  7."— (Works,  p.  168.— 1659.) 

"  The  Holy  Scripture  Trinity,  or  Three  thereby  meant,  we  never  ques- 
tioned, but  believed,  as  also  the  unity  of  Essence,  that  they  are  one  sub- 
stance, one  Divine  Infinite  Being:  and  also  we  question  not,  but  sincerely 
believe,  the  relative  properties  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  according 
to  Holy  Scripture  testimony.  Matt,  ssiii.  19.;  and  that  these  Three  are  One, 
1  John  V.  7."— (p.  195.— 1659.) 

"  In  order  that  the  different  denominations  of  protestants  might  avail 
themselves  of  the  benefit  of  the  act  of  Toleration,  they  were  obliged  to 
subscribe  to  a  declaration  of  their  Christian  belief.  The  form  required  by 
the  committee  of  parliament,  not  being  agreeable  to  Friends,  they  propose 
a  substitute.    George  Whitehead,  speaking  of  the  subject,  says: 

"  Yet  to  prevent  any  such  from  being  stumbled  or  ensnared,  by  some 
expressions  in  the  aforesaid  profession  or  creed,  (which  appeared  unscrip- 
tural)  in  the  said  bill,  we,  instead  thereof,  did  propose  and  humbly  offer,  as 
our  own  real  belief  of  the  Deity,  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  viz. 
*  I  profess  faith  in  God  the  Father,  and  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  etetnal  Son,  the 
true  God,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  one  God,  blessed  for  ever;  and  do  acknow- 
ledge the  Holy  Scriptures  of  tlie  Old  and  New  Testament,  to  be  given  by 
divine  inspiration.' 

"  Which  declaration,  John  Voughton  and  I  delivered  to  Sir  Thomas 
Clergis,  who,  with  some  others,  were  desu-ous  we  should  give  in  such  con- 
fession of  our  Christian  belief,  that  we  might  not  lie  under  the  unjust  im- 
putation of  being  no  Christians,  nor  thereby  be  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  the 
intended  law  for  our  religious  liberty.  We  were,  therefore,  of  nccessltj-, 
put  upon  offering  the  said  confession;  it  being  also  our  known,  professed 
principle,  sincerely  to  confess  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  his  divinity, 
and  as  he  is  the  eternal  word,  and  that  the  three  which  bear  record  in  hea- 
ven, the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  one,  one  Divine  Being, 
one  God,  blessed  for  ever." — (page  635. — 1689.) 

I  think  a  reference  to  these  authorities  will  establish  the 
opinion,  that  the  faith  of  Friends  is  Trinitarian,  predicated 
on  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  that  the  faith  and  doc- 
trines of  Elias  Hicks  are  contrary  to  that.  And^that  those  who 
setup  a  church  founded  on  his  doctrines,  cannot  l)c  styled  the 
society  of  Friends. 

There  is  in  the  forepart  of  this  book,  [Evans'  Exposition,] 
a  catalogue  of  125  authorities,  maintaining  the  doctrine,  that 
Friends  are  Trinitarians.    Here  Mr.  Wright,  at  the  sugges- 


at  Slenbenvilie,  Ohio. 


307 


lion  of  Mr.  Hubbard,  read  from  the  13lh  and  14th  pages  of 
Penn's  Select  Works,  the  following: 

"Refuted  from  Right  Reasm. — 1.  If  there  be  three  distinct  and  se- 
parate persons,  then  three  distinct  and  separate  substances,  because  every 
person  is  inseparable  from  its  own  substance.  And  as  there  is  no  person 
that  is  not  a  substance  in  common  acceptation  among' men,  so  do  the  scrip- 
tures plentifully  agree  herein:  and  since  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is 
God,  and  the  Spirit  is  God,  (which  their  opinion  necessitates  them  to  con- 
fess.J  then,  unless  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  are  three  distinct  nothings, 
they  must  be  three  distinct  substances,  and,  consequently,  three  distinct 
Gods. 

"  2.  It  is  farther  proved,  if  it  be  considered,  that  either  the  divine  persons 
are  finite  or  infinite.  If  the  first,  then  something  finite  is  inseparable  to  the 
infinite  substance,  whereby  something  finite  is  in  God:  if  the  last,  then 
three  distinct  infinites,  three  omnipotents,  three  eternals,  and  so  three  Gods. 

"3.  If  each  person  be  God,  and  that  God  subsists  in  three  persons,  then 
in  each  person  are  three  persons  or  Gods,  and  from  three  they  will  increase 
to  nine,  and  so  ad  injiiiitutn. 

"  4.  But  if  they  shall  deny  the  three  persons  or  subsistences  to  be  infinite, 
(for  so  there  would  unavoidably  be  three  Gods,)  it  will  follow  that  they 
must  be  finite,  and  so  the  absurdity  is  not  abated  from  what  it  was;  for  that 
of  one  substance  having  three  subsistences,  is  not  greater,  than  that  an  infi- 
nite being  should  have  three  finite  modes  of  subsisting.  But  though  that 
mode  which  is  finite  cannot  answer  to  a  substance  that  is  infinite;  yet  to 
try  if  we  can  make  their  principle  to  consist,  let  us  conceive  that  three 
persons,  which  may  be  finite  separately,  make  up  an  infinite  conjunctly: 
however,  this  will  follow,  that  they  are  no  more  incommunicable  or  sepa- 
rate, nor  properly  subsistences,  but  a  subsistence;  for  the  infinite  substance 
cannot  find  a  bottom  or  subsistence  in  any  one  or  two,  therefore  jointly. 
And  here,  I  am  also  willing  to  overlook  finiteness  in  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit,  v/hich  this  doctrine  must  suppose. 

"  5.  Again,  if  these  three  distinct  persons  are  one,  with  some  one  thing, 
as  they  say  they  are  with  the  godhead,  then  are  not  they  incommunicable 
among  themselves;  but  so  much  the  contrary,  as  to  be  one  in  the  place  of 
another.  For  if  that  the  only  God  is  the  Father,  and  Christ  be  that  only 
God,  then  is  Christ  the  Father.  So  if  that  one  God  be  the  Son,  and  the 
Spirit  that  one  God,  then  is  the  Spirit  the  Son,  and  so  round.  Nor  is  it  pos- 
sible to  6top,  or  that  it  should  be  otherwise,  since,  if  the  divine  nature  be 
inseparable  from  the  three  persons,  or  communicated  to  each,  and  each 
person  have  the  whole  divine  nature,  then  is  the  Son  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Spirit  in  the  Son;  unless  that  the  godhead  be  as  incommunicable  to  the 
persons,  as  they  are  reported  to  be  amongst  themselves:  or  that  the  three 
persons  have  distinctly  allotted  them  such  a  proportion  of  the  divine  nature, 
as  is  not  communicable  to  each  other;  which  is  alike  absurd.  Much  more 
might  be  said  to  manifest  the  gross  contradiction  of  this  trinitarian  doctrine, 
as  vulgarly  received;  but  I  must  be  brief." 

I  think  we  shall  be  able  to  prove,  notwithstanding  the  pas- 
sages which  have  been  shown  on  the  other  side,  that  these  do 
not  militaie  at  all  against  the  position  which  I  have  taken: 
That  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the 
society  of  Friends,  and  that  they  are  deistical  doctrines.  That 
a  passage  found  in  this  book,  accords  with  Elias  Hicks  in  a 
certain  degree,  only  goes  to  establish  the  faith  and  doctrines 
of  all  the  authorities  that  I  have  read,  when  it  is  known  that 


308 


Trial  of  Friends 


an  isolated  passage  only,  appears  to  agree  with  the  doctrines 
of  Elias  Hicks.  I  had  mentioned  to  me  yesterday,  as  in  uni- 
son with  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks,  "  Sandy  Foundation 
Shaken."  It  seemed  to  be  triumphantly  mentioned,  as  though 
it  would  sweep  away  all  that  had  been  said  on  the  opposite 
side.  Now,  what  was  that  work?  It  was  a  controversial 
work  of  William  Penn's,  written  for  the  purpose  of  refuting 
the  arguments  of  others,  in  which  he  pushed  his  doctrine  to 
the  utmost  limit;  not  having,  for  his  object,  to  give  his  own 
faith,  or  the  faith  of  those  in  belief  with  him. 

Now,  need  I  go  out  of  this  house,  to  find  instances  as  strong 
as  need  be  found,  to  prove,  that  arguments,  pushed  to  their 
utmost  limits,  ought  not  to  be  used.  How  was  it  with  my 
friend,  Mr.  Hubbard,  and  friend  Tappan,  in  their  arguments? 
I  think  that  either  will  furnish  clear  proof,  that  arguments, 
pushed  to  the  extreme,  are  not  to  be  relied  on,  in  fixing  the 
faith  of  a  society.  AVilliam  Penn,  in  speaking  of  the  charges 
brought  against  the  society  of  Friends,  as  not  believing  in  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  says, 

"  Sectioh  5. — Of  the  Holy  Three,  or  Scripture  Trinity. 
"  Pervers.    '  The  Quakers  deny  the  Trinity.' 

"  Princip.  Nothing  less:  They  believe  in  the  Holy  Three,  or  Trinity  of 
Father,  Word,  and  Spirit,  according  to  scripture.  And  that  these  three 
are  truly  and  properly  one:  of  one  nature  as  well  as  will.  But  they  are 
very  tender  of  quitting  scripture  ternns  and  phrases  for  schoolmen's;  such 
as  '  distinct  and  separate  persons,'  and  '  subsistences,'  &c.  are;  from  whence 
people  are  apt  to  entertain  gross  ideas  and  notions  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost."— ( JFm.  Penn's  Select  Works,  fol.  vol.  p.  682.) 

"  Section  8. — Of  Christ  Jesus,  his  Death  and  Sufferings. 

"  Pervers.  12.  '  The  Quakers  expect  to  be  justified  and  saved  by  the  light 
within  them,  and  not  by  the  death  and  sufferings  of  Christ. ' 

"  Princip.  This  is  both  unfairly  and  untruly  stated,  and  charged  upon  us. 
But  the  various  sense  of  the  word  justification,  obliges  me  here  to  distin- 
guish the  use  of  it:  for  in  the  natural  and  proper  sense,  it  plainly  implies, 
making  men  just,  that  were  unjust;  godly,  that  were  ungodly;  upright, 
that  were  depraved:  as  the  apostle  expresseth  himself,  1  Cor.  6  ch.  2  v. 
'  And  such  were  some  of  you;  but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified, 
but  ye  are  justified,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our 
God.'  In  the  other  use  of  the  word,  which  some  call  a  law-sense,  it  refers 
to  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  and  propitiation  for  sin,  as  in  Rom.  5  ch.  9  v. 
'  Much  more  then,  being  now  justified  by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from 
wrath  through  him:'  and  1  John,  2  ch.  '  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  ad- 
vocate with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ,  the  righteous,  and  he  is  the  propitia- 
tion for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world.'  Which,  though  a  great  truth,  and  most  firmly  believed  by  us;  yet 
no  man  can  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  thereof,  but  as  they  come  to  beheve, 
and  repent  of  the  evil  of  their  ways;  and  then  it  may  be  truly  said,  '  that 
God  justifieth  even  the  ungodly,  and  looks  upon  them  through  Christ,  as 
if  they  had  never  sinned;  because  their  sins  are  forgiven  them  for  his  beloved 
son's  sake.' 

"Not  that  God  looks  on  people  to  be  in  Christ,  that  are  not  in  Christ,- 
that  is,  that  are  not  in  the  faith,  obedience,  and  self-denial  of  Christ;  nor 
sanctified,  nor  led  by  his  spirit,  but  rebel  against  it;  and,  instead  of  dying 


at  SUubenville,,Ohto. 


309 


to  sin;  through  a  true  and  unfeigned  repentancr,  live  and  iiidulg'e  them- 
selves daily  in  it;  "for  they  that  are  in  Christ  become  new  creatures;  old 
things  are  parsed  away,  and  all  things  (with  them,)  become  new."  Where- 
fore, we  say,  that  whatever  Christ  then  did,  both  living  and  dying,  was  of 
great  benefit  to  the  salvation  of  all  that  have  believed,  and  now  do,  and 
that  hereafter  shall  believe  in  him  unto  justification  and  acceptance  with 
God;  hut  the  way  to  come  to  that  faith,  is  to  receive  and  obey  the  mani- 
festation of  his  divine  light  and  grace  in  their  consciences;  which  leads  men 
to  beheve  and  value,  and  not  to  disown  or  undervalue  Christ,  as  the  com- 
mon sacrifice  or  mediator.  For  we  do  affirm,  that  to  follow  this  Holy  Light 
in  the  conscience,  and  to  turn  our  minds,  and  bring  all  our  deeds  and  thoughts 
to  it,  is  the  readiest,  nay,  the  only  right  way  to  have  true,  living,  and  sanc- 
tified faith  in  Christ,  as  he  appeared  in  the  flesh,  and  to  discern  the  Lord's 
body,  coming  and  sufferings  aright,  and  to  receive  any  real  benefit  by  him, 
as  their  only  sacrifice  and  mediator,  according  to  the  beloved  disciple's 
emphatical  passages,  "if  we  walk  in  the  light,  as  (God)  is  in  the  light,  we 
have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  his  Son, 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  And  because  this  people  sny,  that  Christ's  out- 
ward coming  and  sufferings  profit  not  to  their  salvation  that  live  in  sin,  and 
rebel  against  this  divine  light;  some  have  untruly  and  uncharitably  con- 
cluded, that  they  deny  the  virtue  and  benefit  of  Christ's  coming  and  suf- 
ferings in  the  fiesh  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  Whereas,  we  only  deny  and  op- 
pose a  false  and  dangerous  application  of  them  in  and  to,  a  disobedient 
state."— (PTot.  Penn's  Select  Workf,  fol.  vol.  p.  683—4.) 

"Sections. — We  do  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  our  holy  sacrifice, 
atonement,  ^nd  propitiation;  that  he  bore  our  iniquities,  and  that  by  his 
stripes  we  were  healed  of  the  wounds  Adam  gave  us  in  his  fall;  and,  that  God 
is  just  in  forgiving  true  penitents  upon  the  credit  of  that  holy  offering 
Christ  made  of  himself  to  God  for  us;  and  that  what  he  did  and  suffered, 
satisfied  and  pleased  God,  and  was  for  the  sake  of  fallen  man,  that  had  dis- 
pleased God:  and  that,  through  the  offering  up  of  himself  once  for  all,  through 
the  Eternal  Spirit,  he  hath  for  ever  perfected  those  (in  all  times,)  that  were 
sanctified,  'who  walked  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit.'  Horn. 
8th  ch.  1st  V.  Mark  that."— (  Wm.  Penn's  Select  Works,  fol.  vol.  p.  799.) 
"  Concerning  Jesus  Christ. 

"  Because  we  believe,  that  the  word  which  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt 
amongst  men,  and  was  and  is,  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace 
and  truth;  his  beloved  Son,  in  whom  he  is  well  pleased,  and  whom  we 
ought  to  hear  in  all  things;  who  tasted  death  for  every  man,  and  died  for 
gin,  that  we  might  die  to  sin;  is  the  great  light  of  the  world,  and  full  of 
grace  and  truth;  and  that  he  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world, 
and  giveth  them  grace  for  grace,  and  light  for  light,  and  that  no  man  can 
know  God  and  Christ,  (whom  to  know  is  life  eternal,)  and  themselves,  in 
order  to  true  conviction  and  conversion,  without  receiving  and  obeying  this 
holy  light,  and  being  taught  by  the  divine  grace;  and  that  without  it,  no 
remission,  no  justification,  no  salvation,  (as  the  scripture  plentifully  testi- 
fies,) can  be  obtained:  and  l)ecause  we,  therefore,  press  the  necessity  of 
people's  receiving  the  inward  and  spiritual  appearance  of  this  divine  word, 
in  order  to  a  right  and  beneficial  application  of  whatsoever  he  did  for  man, 
with  respect  to  his  life,  miracles,  death,  sufferings,  resurrection,  ascension, 
and  mediation,  our  adversaries  would  have  us  deny  any  Christ  without  us. 
First,  as  to  his  divinity,  because  they  make  us  to  confine  him  too  within  us. 
Secondly,  as  to  his  humanity,  or  manhood,  because  as  he  was  the  son  of 
Abraham,  David,  and  Mary,  according  to  the  flesh,  he  cannot  be  in  us,  and 
therefore  we  are  heretics  and  blasphemers;  whereas,  we  believe  him,  ac- 
cording to  scripture,  to  be  the  son  of  Abraham,  David,  and  Mary,  after  the 
39 


310 


Trial  of  Friends 


Reth,  and  also  God  over  all,  blefised  for  ever.  So  that  he  that  is  within  u«, 
is  also  without  us,  even  tlie  same  that  laid  down  his  precious  life  for  us, 
rose  again  from  the  dead,  and  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us,  being 
the  blessed  and  alone  mediator  betwixt  God  and  man,  and  him  by  whom 
God  will  finally  judge  the  world,  both  quick  and  dead:  all  which  we  as 
sincerely  and  steadfastly  believe,  as  any  other  society  of  people,  whatever 
may  be  ignorantly,  or  maliciously,  insinuated  to  the  contrary,  either  by  our 
declared  enemies  or  mistaken  neighbours." — (Wm.  Penn'a  Select  Works, 
fol.  vol.  p.  809.) 

"  Concerning  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit. 
"  Because  we  have  been  very  cautious  in  expressing  our  faith  concerninjf 
that  great  mystery,  especially  in  such  school  terms,  and  philosophical  distinc- 
tions, as  are  unscriptiiral,  if  not  unsound,  (the  tendency  whereof  hath  been 
to  raise  frivolous  controversies  and  animosities  amongst  men,)  we  have,  by 
those  that  desire  to  lessen  our  Christian  reputation,  been  represented  as 
deniers  of  the  Trinity  at  large:  whereas,  we  ever  believed,  and  as  con- 
stantly maintained,  the  truth  of  that  blessed  (holy  scripture)  'three,  that 
bear  record  In  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  tlie  Spirit,  and  that  these 
three  are  one;'  the  which,  we  both  sincerely  and  reverently  believe,  ac- 
cording to  1  John,  5th  ch.  7th  v.  And  this  is  sufficient  for  us  to  believe  and 
know,  and  hath  a  tendency  to  edification  and  holiness;  when  the  contrary 
centres  only  in  imaginations,  and  strife,  and  persecution,  where  it  runs  high, 
and  to  parties,  as  may  be  read  in  bloody  characters,  in  the  ecclesiastical 
histories." — (  Wm.  Perm's  Select  Works,  fol.  vol.  p.  811. ) 

"  Of  Christ's  being  our  Example. 
"  Because,  in  some  cases,  we  have  said,  the  Lord  Jesus  was  our  great 
example,  and  that  his  obedience  to  his  Father  doth  not  excuse  ours;  but  as. 
by  keeping  his  commandments,  he  abode  in  his  Father's  love,  so  must  we 
follow  his  example  of  obedience,  to  abide  in  his  love;  some  have  been  so 
ignorant  (or  tliat  which  is  worse, )  as  to  ventm-e  to  say  for  us,  or  in  our  name, 
that  we  believe  our  I-ord  Jesus  Christ  was,  in  all  things  but  an  example. 

"  Whereas,  we  confess  him  to  be  so  much  more  than  an  example,  that 
we  believe  him  to  be  our  most  acceptable  sacrifice  to  God  his  Father;  who, 
for  his  sake,  will  look  upon  fallen  m;m,  that  hath  justly  merited  the  wrath 
of  God,  upon  liis  return  by  repentance,  faith,  and  obedience,  as  if  he  had 
never  sinned  at  all." — (  Wm.  Perm's  Select  Works,  fol.  vol:  p.  811.) 
"  Of  Christ's  Coming  both  in  Flesh  and  Spirit. 
"  Because  the  tendency  (generally  speaking,)  of  our  ministry,  is,  to  press 
people  to  the  inward  and  spiritual  appearance  of  ('hrist,  by  his  spirit  and 
grace  in  their  hearts,  to  give  them  a  true  sight  and  sense  of,  and  sorrow  for, 
sin,  to  amendment  of  life  and  practice  of  holiness;  and  because  we  have 
often  opposed  that  doctrine  of  being  actually  justified  by  the  merits  of 
Christ,  whilst  actual  sinners  against  God,  by  living  in  the  pollutions  of  this 
wicked  world,  we  are  by  our  adversaries  rendered  such,  as  either  deny  or 
undei-value,  the  coming  of  Christ  without  us,  and  the  force  and  efficacy  of 
his  death  and  sufl'erii)^s,  as  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  tiie  whole  world. 

"  Whereas  we  do,  and  hope  we  ever  shall  (as  we  always  did)  confess,  to 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father,  and  the  honour  of  his  dear  and  beloved  Son, 
that  He,  to  wit,  Jesus  Christ,  took  our  nature  upon  him,  was  like  us  in  all 
things,  sin  excepted:  that  he  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  went  about 
amongst  men  doing  good,  and  working  many  miracles:  that  he  was  be- 
trayed by  Judas  into  the  hands  of  the  cliief  priests,  &c.  That  he  suffered 
death  under  Pontius  Pilate,  the  Roman  governor,  being  crucified  between 
two  thieves,  and  was  buried  in  the  sepulchre  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea:  rose 
again  the  third  day  from  the  dead,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sits  at 
God's  right  hand,  in  the  power  and  majesty  of  his  Father;  and  that  by  him, 
God  the  Father  will  one  day  judge  the  whole  world,  both  of  quick  and 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


311 


dead,  according  to  their  works." — (^JVilliam  Penu't  Hekct  Work*,  fol.  voi. 
p.  812.) 

"  Vour  fifth  charge  is,  'that  we  deny  the  Trinity.'  But  you  should,  in 
justice,  have  added,  of  persons,  with  all  the  school-niceties  and  distinctions 
that  belong  to  that  sort  of  ex])lication  of  Scripture;  for  to  that  only  it  is 
your  first  proof  refers,  viz.  W.  P. 's  Sandy  Foundation,  p.  12.  '  For  the  scrip- 
ture nowhere  calls  God  the  Holy  Three  of  Israel,  but  Holy  One  of  Israel.' 
And  if  he  had  said  Imagined  Trinity,  p.  16,  as  you  cite,  which  he  does  not, 
in  the  copy  we  have,  it  ought  not  to  be  so  heinous  with  you,  since  Three 
Persons  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  which  you  exalt  for  the  only  rule 
of  faith." — {William  Perm's  Select  Works,  fol.  vol.  p.  6/2.) 

I  do  not  know,  that  it  would  be  profitable  for  a  right  under- 
standing of  this  subject,  to  consume  more  time  in  reading  au- 
thorities. The  vast  number  of  authorities  cited  in  the  book 
that  I  have  referred  to,  [Evans'  Exposition,]  and  the  great 
number  of  passages  quoted  from  Elias  Hicks'  Sermons, 
cloaked  and  covered  up  as  they  are,  are  such,  that  it  does  seem 
to  me,  the  mind  cannot  hesitate  in  coming  to  a  conclusion 
about  the  doctrines  maintained  on  the  one  side  by  Friends,  and 
those  entertained  on  the  other  side  by  Elias  Hicks  and  his  fol- 
lowers. I  may  misinterpret  it,  for  I  pretend  to  no  perfection 
in  the  matter;  but  to  my  understanding  there  can  be  no  doubt 
or  question,  but  that  the  doctrines  promulgated  by  Elias 
Hicks  are  the  doctrines  of  deism.  If  they  are  so,  and  if  I  am 
right  in  the  position  on  which  I  have  based  my  argument, 
that  the  society  of  Friends  is  a  society  of  Christians,  who  wor- 
ship and  believe  in  the  divine  personage  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
his  vicarious  agency;  am  I  not  right  in  drawing  this  conclu- 
sion, that  Elias  Hicks  is  an  opposer  of  these  doctrines,  and 
at  enmity  with  them;  and,  that  sustaining  him  and  his  prin- 
ciples, must  tend  directly  to  the  subversion  of  the  ancient  faith 
and  belief  of  this  society. 

I  draw  a  distinction  between  the  indisputable  faith  and  be- 
lief proclaimed  by  both  these  parties,  and  the  colourable 
passages  interspersed  throughout  the  writings  of  those,  as  I 
understand  it,  who  are  labouring  to  subvert  the  ancient  princi- 
ples of  the  society.  There  is  nothing  new  in  this.  It  has 
been  the  case  ever  since  the  creation  of  the  world.  It  has  not 
been  confined  or  limited  to  religious  controversy.  It  embraces 
all  classes  of  men  in  the  world,  as  to  controversial  points.  If 
there  be  established  order,  upon  settled  principles,  there  arises 
a  revolutionary  spirit,  which  seeks  to  subvert  that  order,  and 
to  erect  u|)on  its  i-uins  a  different  order  of  things.  This  is 
precisely  the  mode  adopted  by  Elias  Hicks;  colouring  words, 
and  deluding  by  false  lights:  pretending  to  be  one  thing,  and 
meaning  another,  till  he  has  increased  in  strength  and  power 
sufficient  to  withstand  you.  No  other  course  has  ever  been 
pursued,  or  will  be,  unless  men  be  moTed  by  different  motives 
than  those  hitherto  known.    If  Elias  Hicks  were  to  come  for-. 


313 


Trial  of  Friends 


ward,  in  broad  day,  and  own,  in  terms,  that  he  is  a  disbeliever 
in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  there  are  very  few  of  those  who  now 
sustain  him  in  his  course,  that  would  stick  to  him  any  longer. 
They  would  reject  him;  and  they  would  reject  his  ministry; 
as  being  the  work  of  the  devil.  I  say  this,  because  I  believe 
that  a  large  majority  of  tliose  who  are  now  sustaining  him, 
are  doing  it  under  a  mistaken  notion  of  his  doctrines.  I  en- 
tertain the  belief,  that  they  are  mistaken,  because  they  are  cover- 
ed, to  answer  his  purpose,  of  shaking  the  understanding  and 
belief,  of  those  to  whom  he  addresses  himself. 

Then,  how  does  this  opinion  affect  the  question  of  the 
much  abused  testimony  that  I  hold  in  my  hand.''  It  is,  says 
Judge  Tappan,  the  foundation  of  all  these  disturbances:  the 
work  of  the  archbishop;  the  work  of  tyranny  and  impudence: 
of  those  who  would  force  it  down  the  throats  of  others.  It 
not  only  bears  testimony  in  humility,  but_in  sincerity.  Of 
what?  It  bears  testimony  against  those  doctrines  which  are 
now  taking  deep  root  in  our  country,  jeoparding  not  only  this 
church,  but  all  others,  that  believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
They  cautioned  those  of  their  belief  against  giving  heed  to 
these  doctrines,  exhorting  them  to  pray  for  strength  from  the 
Almighty,  to  enable  them  to  resist  their  influence.  This  is 
the  abused  testimony,  and  the  advice  coming  from  the  Meet- 
ing for  Sufferings,  no  part  of  which  is  deserving  of  the  epi- 
thets which  have  been  applied  by  the  other  side.  We  hear  of 
cramming.    Let  us  hear  the  language  of  this  advice. 

[Here  Mr.  Wright  read  the  advice  of  the  Meeting  for  Suf- 
ferings of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  introductory  to  the  Indiana 
epistle.] 

Now,  if  this  be  cramming  doctrines  down  the  throats  of 
unbelievers;  and  if  it  be  a  matter  of  persecution,  that  should 
call  for  all  this  excited  feeling,  that  this  testimony  has  been 
printed  and  disseminated  among  them,  then  I  know  of  nothing 
in  the  work  of  love,  or  admonition,  or  invitation,  that  could 
be  sent  forth  from  ministers  and  elders,  in  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings,  exhorting  the  people  to  unite  with  them  in  faith, 
and  stick  to  the  ancient  principles  of  the  society,  which  would 
not  be  persecution  and  cramming.  We  are  told  that  the 
Yearly  Meeting  for  Discipline  prohibits  the  Meeting  for  Suf- 
ferings from  imposing  any  new  faith.  There  is  no  attempt 
here  to  do  any  such  thing.  There  is  an  exhortation  to  abide 
by  the  ancient  faith;  and  I  have  shown  that  tlve  ancient  faith 
is,  indeed  and  in  truth,  the  same  as  here  set  forth. 

Who  has  been  required  to  believe  what  is  herein  stated? 
No  man.  The  counsel,  in  all  their  ingenuity,  advancing  with 
testimony,  and  without  testimony,  have  not  found  it  in  their 
power  to  identify  an  individual  who  has  been  operated  on,  or 
coerced  by  the  testimony  from  Indiana.    Was  David  Schol- 


V 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


313 


field  disowned  for  that?  The  good  David  Scholfield!  The  tes- 
timony of  disownment,  that  called  forth  so  much  sarcasm 
from  the  gentleman  at  my  right,  does  not  show  any  sMch  fact. 
For  what  was  he  disowned?  For  uniting  in  belief  with  Elias 
Hicks  ;  denying  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour  of  men,  contrary 
to  the  belief  and  doctrines  of  the  society.  Are  we  to  presume 
that  the  society  to  which  the  good  David  Scholfield  belonged, 
disowned  him,  and  declared  him  disunited  with  them  in  be- 
lief, for  no  reason?  It  will  do  for  my  friend  to  presume  this. 
But  they  bore  testimony  against  him  for  some  purpose.  We 
have  been  told  that  it  was  because  of  this  book,  [the  Indiana 
testimony.]  But  there  is  not  a  word  of  it,  in  the  testimony  of 
disownment.  It  refers  to  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks,  as 
contained  in  the  book  from  which  I  have  read  some  passages. 
And  if  David  Scholfield  did  entertain  the  doctrines  contained 
in  this  book,  the  overseers,  and  ministers  and  elders,  would 
have  been  negligent  of  their  duty,  and  recreant,  if  they  did  not 
bear  testimony  against  him. 

Is  David  Scholfield  one  of  the  defendants?  No.  Is  he 
complained  of  as  one  of  the  parties?  No.  He  has  appear- 
ed here  as  a  make-weight.  And  he  is  relied  on  as  one  of 
the. principal  witnesses.  And  although  we  have  shown  that 
he  has  been  disowned,  and  disowned  lawfully,  yet  he  is  brought 
here  as  a  witness  to  whom  credit  is  to  be  given,  against  the  tes- 
timony of  those  on  the  other  side.  And  this  David  Scholfield 
has  introduced  this  saving  clause:  that  he  did  not  wish  to  speak 
very  positively  as  to  any  particular  points.  This  makes  him 
a  most  capital  witness;  for  he  kept  a  saving  clause  for  any 
little  aberration.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  of  all  the  wit- 
nesses who  have  borne  testimony  in  relation  to  Thomas  Shil- 
litoe,  David  Scholfield  stands  alone,  in  establishing  the  fact, 
which  is  here  made  the  burthen  of  half  the  argument  of  Mr. 
Tappan,  as  to  the  character  of  the  supplication  of  Shillitoe. 
Whether  this  is  one  of  the  points  on  which  he  would  not  be 
understood  as  speaking  positively,  I  cannot  tell:  but  I  think 
it  would  be  well  for  David  and  the  counsel  to  include  this;  for 
this  reason,  that  in  this,  he  stands  unsupported  by  other  wit- 
nesses. It  is  contrary  to  the  testimony  of  Levi  Pickering, 
who  says,  an  aged  Friend  was  engaged  in  supplication,  while 
he  and  his  colum.n  were  advancing;  and  they  were  struck  with 
awe,  and  stopped  their  movements:  and  that  he  was  suppli- 
cating the  throne  of  grace  for  military  victory,  is  what  I  can- 
not credit,  even  from  the  mouth  of  the  good  David  Scholfield. 

Judge  Tappan  has  said  that  the  Concord  meeting  was  laid 
down  because  of  their  disbelief  in  this  Indiana  testimony;  and 
for  no  other  cause,  except  to  sustain  the  tyranny  of  the  arch- 
bishop. Now,  what  is  the  fact  as  to  Concord?  How  did  they 
accept  this  paper?    It  was  sent  in  the  ordinary  mode  of  dis- 


314 


Trial  of  Friends 


tributing  papers,  by  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  of  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting.  It  is  a  testimony  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Indiana, 
and  not  of  the  archbishop,  and  the  ministers  and  elders.  It  was 
sent  in  the  usual  way:  not  by  Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  or  any  of 
his  co-committee-men.  The  meeting  declared  this  paper  to 
be  a  forgery,  and  a  falsehood;  and  that  they  would  not  unite 
with  it.  They  would  not  unite  with  it,  though  in  accordance 
with  the  discipline  of  the  society.  I  have  been  asked  if  the 
decree  of  the  archbishop  and  his  co-tyrants,  is  irrevocable,  or 
revocable?  The  testimony  was  advanced,  and  if  we  look  to 
the  discipline  of  the  society,  we  shallfind  that  it  was  one  in  force 
during  the  recess  of  the  meeting.  The  proceedings  ofc  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings,  are  submitted  to  the  Yearly  Meeting, 
and  if  approved  by  them,  they  are  the  acts  of  the  meeting.  If 
disapproved,  they  are  null  and  void. 

What  was  the  course  to  be  pursued  at  Concord,  when  they 
were  advised  by  the  testimony  from  Indiana,  sanctioned  by 
those  clothed  with  the  authority  of  discipline  to  advise?  I 
say,  what  was  their  proper  course.*" — Why,  to  have  let  the 
testimony  be  entered  upon  their  book  of  minutes ;  let  them 
entertain  all  the  feelings  they  might  entertain  in  relation  to  it; 
and  then  attend  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  there  obtain  .the 
order  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  annulling  that  advice.  It  would 
have  been  harmless — hurting  no  one  on  earth.  Then  they 
could  have  gone,  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  society,  to 
the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  exerted  what  power  they  had,  to  pro- 
duce a  denial.  But  did  they  take  that  course?  No.  They 
thought  it  did  not  accord  with  their  views:  and  now  they  are 
persecuted,  and  crammed,  and  borne  down  by  a  nest  of  tyrants; 
therefore  they  are  justified  in  bidding  defiance  to  the  rule 
of  the  church,  and  in  trampling  the  discipline  under  foot; 
and  setting  up  an  order  of  things  to  suit  themselves.  I  do 
not  know  where  gentlemen  are  to  go,  if  they  will  acknowledge 
no  rule;  if  they  are  to  take  such  a  testimony  as  this,  and  pre- 
tend that  it  is  crammed  down,  and  then  make  that  the  founda- 
tion of  their  cause,  for  trampling  authority  under  foot,  and 
making  a  minute  of  disunity  with  the  society,  and  henceforth 
holding  no  communion  with  it;  and  going  forth  with  force,  to 
depose  officers,  and  set  up  their  own  authority,  upon  so  slender 
a  foundation.  I  say,  it  is  not  warranted  by  the  evidence — not 
one  scintilla  of  it.  On  the  part  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings, 
the  lestimoHy  only  expresses  the  belief  of  the  society,  from 
George  Fox,  down  to  this  day.  They  were  required,  by  the 
discipline,  to  receive  that  testimony  according  to  its  provi- 
sions. They  were  not  to  drive  it  out  of  the  house,  or  to  burn 
it  by  the  common  hangman;  and  in  doing  so,  they  did  draw 
down  the  censure  of  the  church  and  the  community. 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


315 


And  has  any  thing  furtlier  been  done?  They  rejected  this 
authority  in  their  superior  meeting,  for  exerting  this  power 
to  intrude  a  testimony !  The  Quarterly  Meeting  thus  proceed- 
ed to  laying  it  down,  and  transferring  its  members  to  another 
meeting.  This  is  said  to  be  an  act  of  tyranny,  that  should 
warrant  them  in  doing  any  thing:  in  holding  conferences  at 
the  barn,  at  Redstone,  at  Plainfield,  and  at  the  school  house  in  ' 
Mount  Pleasant. 

As  connected  with  this  subject,  my  friend.  Judge  Tappan, 
brings  up  a  discussion  about  the  co-tenancy  of  the  members 
of  the  society,  in  the  property  of  the  society;  and  supposes 
that  the  order  for  laying  down  the  Monthly  Meeting,  and  de- 
claring its  disunity  with  its  head,  is  for  the  purpose  of  appro- 
priating to  the  meeting,  or  to  some  of  the  tyrants  of  the 
meeting,  the  property  of  the  society.  It  is  not  so.  The  gen- 
tleman has  gone  further,  and  given  vent  to  his  sneering,  in- 
sinuating, that  Ladd  and  John  Street  had  their  minds  upon 
the  property.  [Mr.  Tappan  here  signified  his  exemption  of 
John  Street  from  the  charge  of  tyranny.]  John  Street  is  not 
a  tyrant,  but  a  speculator!  The  testimony  of  Elish'a  Bates,  he 
says,  establishes  a  tyranny  beyond  doubt,  in  the  doctrine,  that 
a  minority  can  disown  a  majority: — three  or  nine,  can  disown 
fifty  thousand,  is  the  comparison  of  the  gentleman ;  and  that 
they  can  proceed  with  disownments  till  they  get  the  whole 
property.  Is  this  not  strictly  true?  Is  it  not  so  in  this,  and 
every  other  society?  I  apprehend  it  is.  What  is  a  disown- 
ment,  but  a  testimony  of  one  or  more  individuals,  of  disunity 
in  faith  and  society,  with  another  individual.^  Nothing  else. 
Those  who  remain  in  unison,  may  proceed  to  disown  any 
number  of  those  not  in  unison,  because  religious  society  is  one 
thing,  and  religious  dissention  is  another — and  this  is  not  an 
irrevocable  decree.  •  That  is  the  course;  the  orderly  and  de- 
corous course  which  ought  to  be  observed.  Does  Bates  pretend 
to  say,  that  the  authority  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  not  com- 
petent? He  has  advanced  no  idea  of  the  kind.  But  those 
who  formed  the  society  had  power  to  act;  and  any  individual 
may  exert  the  power,  so  long  as  clothed  with  it,  according  to 
the  constitution  of  the  church.  The  gentleman  is  welcome  to 
all  the  epithets  that  he  has  heaped  upon  Bates,  and  all  the 
asperity  he  has  cast  on  Benjamin  W.  Ladd.  It  does  not  affect 
their  testimony,  or  character,  abroad. 

But  as  to  the  property,  it  is  said  we  are  co-partners,  because 
the  meeting  house  was  erected  by  subscription.  Now,  this  is 
not  so.  It  may  be  convenient  doctrine,  but  it  is  not  sound. 
It  has  no  foundation,  except  it  be  the  sandy  foundation.  You 
subscribe  to  erect  a  presbyterian  church.  You  are  rot  subject 
to  the  action  of  that  society.  In  whom  is  the  properly  vested? 
I  do  not  belong  to  the  society.    If  I  am  a  tenant  in  common, 


316 


Trial  of  Friendi 


and  if  I  get  in  debt,  an  execution  may  be  levied  upon  my  por- 
tion of  the  property.  This  cannot  be.  The  subscribers  are 
not  tenants  in  common.  Take  this  court  house.  To  whom 
does  it  belong:  to  you?  no — it  does  not.  It  belongs  to  the 
county,  in  its  aggregate  capacity,  and  corporate  power:  and  so, 
the  property  of  the  society  of  Friends.  If  that  meeting  house 
were  built  by  subscription,  it  belongs  to  the  society.  No  in- 
dividual capacity  or  title,  is  carried  along  with  individual 
members.  So,  the  gentleman's  argument  cuts  up  itself.  If 
he  does  not  go  on  some  other  principle,  he  cannot  sustain 
himself  on  this — his  whole  argument  falls  to  the  ground. 
Why,  then,  all  this  talk  about  property.**  If  the  separatists,  or 
Hicksites,  are  the  society,  then  the  property  is  theirs.  If  the 
orthodox  are  the  society,  then  the  property  is  theirs.  But 
we  have  never  taken  any  step  in  severing  ourselves  from  those 
disowned,  which  is  depriving  them  of  their  rights ;  but  have 
known,  from  the  beginning,  that  the  property  was  not  in- 
volved in  this  inquiry. 

I  think,  if  we  look  to  any  other  seceding  party,  we  shall  find 
no  parallel  instance,  like  the  attempt  to  crowd  the  orthodox 
party  out  of  the  building,  and  to  establish  a  church  according 
to  their  own  tenets  and  views.  This,  I  believe,  is  the  first 
instance  on  record,  of  an  attempt  to  drive  those  in  possession 
of  the  building  and  records  of  the  church,  out  of  possession, 
and  to  introduce  heterodox  doctrine.  I  think  they  deserve 
credit  for  their  ingenuity  in  mingling  things,  naturally  dissi- 
milar; things  which  never  can  unite. 

I  repeat  the  question.  What  has  the  property  to  do  with 
the  disturbance,  that  liked  to  have  taken  place  at  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting?  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  at  all.  Well,  that  this 
was  a  predominant  feeling  in  them,  is  manifest;  and  a  proposi- 
tion was  made,  not  by  John  Bull,  but  by  Jackson,  just  as  much 
of  a  foreigner.  What  right  had  he  to  make  a  proposition? 
He  had  none.  He  was  as  much  from  abroad  as  Shillitoe,  and 
equally  as  obnoxious.  It  is  pronounced  tyranny,  on  the  part 
of  the  orthodox,  that  Shillitoe  should  have  ventured,  in  a  pub- 
lic meeting  house,  to  invoke  and  supplicate  the  throne  of  grace. 
I  may  as  well  say,  it  was  tyranny  on  the  other  side,  that  Jack- 
son should  propose  a  division  of  the  pi-operty.  Jackson  is  just 
as  much  a  foreigner  as  Dawson, or  Peaslee,or  any  of  the  retinue 
with  v.'hom  Hicks  passed  through  this  country.  The  fee  of 
that  property  is  vested  in  the  old  man  who  sits  yonder.  The 
others  possess  no  right  to  that  property.  The  right  of  Taylor 
is  indisputable.  It  cannot  be  questioned.  The  right  of  Pierce, 
of  the  good  Mr.  Scholfield,  and  Mr.  James,  is  not  paramount 
to  the  right  of  Mr.  Taylor.  They  are  neither  of  them  grantees 
of  the  fee  of  the  property.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  that  the 
grantee  of  that  fee,  who  has  it  in  trust,  has  a  perfect  right  to 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


317 


use  and  control  it,  so  far  as  to  reg;ulateils  applicatLon — so  far 
as  the  trust  goes. 

How  stands  the  case?  The  trustees  have  authorized  James 
Heald  to  keep  possession;  that,  they  cannot  pronounce  an  act 
of  tyranny.  They  have  called  it  an  act  of  usurpation.  What 
was  he  to  do?  Suppose  a  band  of  robbers  had  designed  enter- 
ing the  house,  and  carrying  on  their  depredations.  Had  they 
not  a  right  to  take  measures  to  guard  the  property,  to  protect 
the  fee,  for  the  purposes  and  uses  of  the  grant?  No  man  can 
question  it.  What  did  Taylor  and  the  other  trustees  do? 
They  gave  the  authority  to  a  person  who  is  empowered  by 
grantees  for  the  purpose  of  the  trustj  and  the  grantees  had  a 
right  so  to  do.  And  he  went  into  possession  in  obedience  to 
that  trust  and  grant.  And  while  there,  enjoying  his  rights,  he 
is  interrupted  by  those  whom  the  gentlemen  call  co-tenants  of 
the  property,  having  equal  rights.  Come,  all  you  that  have 
been  disowned,  and  we  will  unite  with  you,  and  carry  our  de- 
signs into,  execution,  until  we  have  supplanted  and  put  down 
those  whom  we  denominate  tyrants  and  usurpers. 

I  have  attacked,  in  succession,  the  different  outposts  put 
forth  by  the  gentlemen,  and  have  advanced  near  to  their  line. 
I  now  come  to  their  case.  But  what  is  their  case?  It  embraces 
several  distinct  propositions.  They  bring  up  a  thing,  altogether 
unknown  in  criminal  prosecutions — an  offset.  The  main  thing 
on  which  they  rely  is,  that  Street,  and  Ladd,  and  Bates,  and 
Taylor  violated  the  laws.  What  if  they  did?  Does  that  prove 
that  David  Hilles  and  James  are  to  escape?  If  Ladd,  and  Tay- 
lor, and  Bates,  and  Street  are  obnoxious  to  the  criminal  laws, 
prosecute,  and  punish  them,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun,  until 
the  going  down  of  the  same.  It  operates  as  no  excuse.  Many 
are  as  obnoxious  to  the  punishment  of  the  law  as  a  few.  No 
criminal,  since  the  creation  of  the  world,  ever  invoked  the  guilt 
of  others,  in  order  to  sustain  the  assumption  of  his  innocence. 
It  is  a  course  unknown  in  criminal  proceedings. 

Take  the  propositions  of  the  defence  in  the  order  in  which 
they  have  been  advanced.  It  is  asserted  by  Mr.  Hubbard, 
and  sustained  by  Mr.  Tappan,  that  the  appointment  of  David 
Hilles  was  according  to  the  discipline  and  order  of  the  society; 
regular  and  decorous.  Now,  we  must  shut  our  eyes  to  all 
perceptions  of  reason  and  common  sense,  if  we  can  believe 
it,  taking  it  in  its  broad,  abstract  position.  Ask  the  wit- 
nesses. You  are  told  on  one  side,  that  it  was  in  order.  ^Vhy? 
Was  it  provided  for  in  the  Discipline  ?  No.  Was  it  accord- 
ing to  the  Discipline?  No.  But  necessity  drove  us  to  it,  and 
that  made  it  in  order.  The  necessity  of  the  case  impelled 
them  forward  to  take  such  a  coufse:  and  that  is  to  establish 
and  sustain  the  proceeding.  To  justify  it,  three  or  four  cases, 
said  to  be  analogous,  have  been  selected,  as  occurring  during 
40 


J 


ilS 


Tnul  of  Frie/tJs 


the  two  liundttd  years  lliat  this  society  has  been  in  existence. 
I  want  no  stronger  argument  to  satisfy  me,  that  it  was  disor- 
•lerly  and  unknown  to  the  society,  than  is  found  in  the  fact, 
thai  with  all  their  industry,  but  four  or  five  instances  have 
been  found  and  brought  forward,  as  precedents  to  sustain  this. 
And  some  of  these  arc  instances  brought  from  Monthly  and 
Quarterly  Meetings,  to  sustain  the  appointment  of  Hilles; 
notwithstanding  they  have  no  analogy  to  the  appointments  in 
this  meeting,  being  entirely  different  and  provided  for  by  the 
Discipline.  "  A  committee  should  be  annually  appointed,  in 
each  of  our  Quarterly  and  Monthly  Meetings,  to  nominate 
clerks." — Discipline,  page  32. 

Let  it  be  remarked,  that  this  does  not  embrace  any  thing 
in  connexion  with  the  clerk  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  Commit- 
tees are  appointed  in  the  Monthly  and  Quarterly  Meetings,  to 
nominate  clerks,  having  in  view  a  change  of  those  officers. 
Let  us  look  to  the  98th  page  of  the  Discipline,  and  see  under 
what  provision  it  is,  by  which  the  representatives  choose.  In 
the  subordinate  meetings,  the  Discipline  recognises  the  power 
of  the  meeting  to  choose  clerks,  having  for  its  object  the  ex- 
ercise of  different  individuals.  But  in  the  Yearly  Meeting, 
the  representatives  are  enjoined  to  choose  a  clerk.  [See  98th 
page  of  the  Discipline;  or  page  228,  of  this  work.]  The  time 
for  the  choice;  the  period  for  which  the  party  chosen  shall 
serve,  are  alike  designated.  It  embraces  both  males  and 
females.  And  here,  let  me  remark,  that  Friends  are  much 
more  gallant  than  other  societies,  in  leaving  to  the  females 
the  choice  of  their  o\vn  officers  and  clerks.  But  the  injunc- 
tion of  the  Discipline,  not  only  devolves  the  power  on  the 
representatives,  but  fixes  the  period  when  they  shall  exercise 
that  power,  and  the  term  for  which  the  officer  shall  hold  his 
authority.  In  the  inferior  meetings,  the  duty  devolves  on  the 
meetings;  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  on  the  representatives.  In 
them,  the  nominations  by  committees,  must  be  confirmed  by 
the  meetings.  The  committees  have  no  power  and  authority 
to  choose. — I  am  met  with  this  objection;  that  the  Yearly 
Meeting  have  treated  the  power  of  the  representatives  as  a 
nominating  power;  and  have  acted  on  their  nominations.  If 
there  be  any  doubt  or  ambiguity,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Discipline,  let  us  resort  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  to  solve  the 
doubt;  but  if  the  meaning  be  clear,  we  ask  only  the  application 
of  the  legal  rule,  and  that  the  construction  should  be  put  on 
this  by  the  law  of  the  land — not  i)y  the  erroneous  entries 
which  may  have  been  made  by  clerks;  and  I  ask  it,  in  no  way 
foreign  to  the  ordinary  usage  of  courts  of  justice,  and  the  well 
established  usages  of  the  law.  If  we  advert  to  these  minutes, 
it  will  be  found,  that  the  representatives  have  been  requested 
to  do — what?  A  duty  that  devolves  on  them.    Is  that  saying 


nt  Steuhcnville,  Ohio. 


that  the  power  is  inherent  in  the  meeting?  No  such  thing. 
The  representatives  have  been  desired  to  do  or  to  propose, 
what  is  aside  from  the  Discipline,  and  not  to  the  point.  Well, 
what  then  is  the  determination  of  the  power  that  has  been 
vested  in  them  ?  Do  the  minutes  show  that  this  grant  has 
been  repealed  or  annulled  ?  They  have  used  the  term  pro- 
pose," and  not  appoint.  There  was  nobody  astute  enough  to 
correct  the  error,  when  a  name  has  been  reported  to  the 
meeting,  and  the  meeting  has  united  in  the  appointments.  It 
has  been  said,  on  the  other  side,  that  the  representatives  have 
no  power  to  appoint.  The  meeting  united  in  the  persons  that 
the  representatives  proposed.  The  meetings  have  united  in 
such  appointments  the  world  over;  but  does  that  show  that 
the  representatives  have  not  the  power?  It  is  just  one  of  those 
errors  that  would  be  perfectly  natural  for  a  meeting,  or  the 
body  of  society,  to  slide  into.  The  appointments  in  Quarterly 
and  Monthly  Meetings,  are,  by  the  Discipline  itself,  devolved 
on  the  meeting.  The  Discipline  advises  these  meetings  to 
call  in  the  intervention  of  committees,  but  devolves  not  the 
duty  on  any  body  elsej  because  the  meetings  asseml)le  more 
frequently.  And  the  practice  of  these  meetings  is  carried 
into  the  Yearly  Meeting;  and  not  looking  with  the  astute  eye 
of  a  lawyer,  they  go  and  make  a  request,  and  use  the  word 
'^propose,"  instead  of  appoint.  And  this  thing  is  relied  on,  in 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  book  of  Discipline,  which  is 
published. 

I  may  be  called  on  to  answer  another  objection — Whether 
there  is  not  inherent  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio,  power  to 
appoint  a  clerk.  It  is  an  indisputable  proposition.  A  power, 
without  which,  no  society  could  exist.  I  am  willing  to  take 
the  case  of  the  speaker  of  the  Ohio  house  of  representatives. 
The  speaker  comes  to  the  chaii-,  so  di  iink  that  he  cannot  per- 
form the  duties  of  his  office.  I  am  asked,  whether  there  is  not 
power  in  that  assembly,  which  made  ils  own  rules,  to  appoint 
another  speaker?  I  say  there  is.  And  when  tiiey  bring  me 
a  parallel  case,  occurring  in  the  Yearly  Meeiing  of  Ohio,  I 
will  not  dispute  the  power.  Was  Jonathan  Taylor  drunk,  or 
incapacitated  from  performing  the  dulies  of  clerk  to  that  meet- 
ing? Let  any  man  answer  this  query,  and  answer  it  in  the  af- 
firmative, if  he  can. 

What  are  the  reasons  given  for  removing  Taylor?  It  was 
rumoured  abroad,  that  he,  in  New  York,  had  gone  to  a  meet- 
ing in  a  medical  hall,  with  those  separating  from  the  society 
of  Friends.  And  what  of  thus?  And  this  charge  comes  from 
a  party,  too,  claiming  that  they  are  persecuted  by  a  band  of 
tyrants.  A  man  distant  five  or  six  hundred  miles  from  liomr, 
cannot  go  with  a  part  of  the  meeting,  to  an  assembly,  with- 
out being  considered,  as  being  an  a  par  .wiili  a  man  in  such  a 


320 


Trial  of  Frimdt 


state  of  inebriety,  as  to  have  none  of  his  senses  about  him. 
Here  is  a  true  spirit  of  intolerance,  a  true  spirit  of  persecu- 
tion. And  here  are  found  those  seeds  of  tyranny  which  they 
seek,  with  such  assiduity,  to  fix  upon  the  aged  Friend  who  sits 
here  in  my  eye.  Well,  this  offence,  mighty  as  it  was,  when 
discoloured  by  the  jaundiced  optics  of  those  who  urge  it,  is  so 
trivial,  that  you  would  not  whip  a  dog  for  such  a  thing,  much 
less  proceed  to  displace,  in  a  solemn  assembly  of  religious 
people,  the  officer  of  that  assembly,  and  that,  too,  without 
having  communicated  to  him  the  nature  of  the  charge,  frivo- 
lous as  it  was. 

What  else?  Taylor,  on  Sunday,  the  day  before  this  meeting 
for  discipline,  when  a  man  within  the  meeting,  or  place  of 
worship,  was  preaching  doctrines  at  war  with  the  faith  of  the 
society,  and  subversive  of  its  foundation,  got  up  and  asked 
him  to  sit  down:  and  said,  we  do  not  own  you,  as  united  with 
our  church.  This  is  the  whole  of  itj  strip  it  of  the  colouring 
which  has  been  thrown  over  it;  strip  it  of  the  vituperative  epi- 
thets with  which  the  counsel  have  clothed  it.  Now  this  is  a 
party  thing.  Look  at  those  who  complain  of  this  tyranny; 
look  at  the  language  of  that  party,  and  see  what  it  was  at  the 
school  house  on  Saturday.  Hear  Mr.  Magar,  who  could  not 
recollect  any  thing.  He  had  attended  the  conference  on  Satur- 
day. Was  there  any  thing  agreed  on  there?  No.  Was  there 
any  proposition  submitted?  No.  What  w?.s  the  understand- 
ing? All  were  to  go  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  as  usual.  Was 
there  no  conversation  about  the  appointment  of  a  clerk?  We 
did  not  agree  to  any  thing.  Was  there  no  conversation  about 
a  clerk?  Thei  e  was  no  agreement  there.  Was  there  no  talk 
about  a  clerk?  The  rneeting  came  to  no  resolution.  Was 
there  nothing  said  about  David  Hilles  as  clerk?  We  agreed 
we  would  go  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  as  usual.  Was  nothing 
determined  on  about  Hilles?  All  agreed  to  go  to  the  meeting 
as  usual.  Was  there  no  agreement  come  to,  about  a  clerk? 
We  did  not  agree  to  any  thing.  The  meeting  agreed  to  go 
to  meeting  as  usual. 

Why  did  they  have  such  an  agreement?  Why  leave  their 
homes,  and  come  to  Mount  Pleasant?  Why  was  there  a  ne- 
cessity to  go  to  a  conference,  and  covenant  to  go  to  meeting 
as  usual? 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  testimony  of  Israel  UpdegralT,  who 
testified  with  apparent  fairness.  Did  the  meeting  at  the  school 
house  come  to  any  agreement  ?  No.  I  made  a  proposition 
myself  that  thev  should  go  to  meeting,  with  a  determination 
to  exert  force,  to  maintain  their  rights  in  the  society.  But 
the  meeting  would  not  come  to  any  agreement.  He  did  not 
make  the  proposition  in  meeting,  but  took  a  chance  to  hint  it 
to  his  friends,  and  the  conference  is  screened  from  liability, 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


321 


because  he  just  suggested  it  privately,  that  is,  hitited  it  all 
around  the  house,  and  the  meeting  did  not  unite  in  it.  Why 
not  unite  in  it?  Because  of  the  fear  of  the  weight  and  influ- 
ence it  would  have,  in  case  they  should  commit  any  violence, 
and  become  obnoxious  to  the  law.  That  is  the  answer.  It  is 
vain  to  believe  they  did  not  know  what  they  were  about;  that 
they  did  not  come  to  an  understanding.  Mr.  Updegraft'was 
displeased  that  they  did  not. 

Look  at  what  passed,  and  see  whether  they  did  not  under- 
stand one  another,  as  to  what  they  were  to  do,  and  whether 
there  was  not,  as  stated  in  the  testimony,  a  conversation  about 
the  appointment  of  a  clerk.  Why?  Because  Jonathan  Tay- 
lor had  gone  off  to  the  medical  hall,  in  New  York.  Thus  he 
had  disqualified  himself.  It  certainly  Avas  not  asserted  in  Sa- 
turday's conference,  that  his  interrupting  Hicks  and  Peaslee 
was  the  cause:  for  that  had  not  happened.  These  are  the  only 
two  reasons,  ridiculous  and  contemptible  as  they  are:  and 
these  are  the  only  reasons  advanced,  why  Taylor,  an  aged  and 
amiable  servant  of  the  society,  should  be  routed  from  his  seat, 
and  disgraced  and  published  to  the  world,  as  a  man  guilty  of 
a  dereliction  of  duty.  And  these  reasons  come  from  a  party 
complaining  of  tyranny  and  persecution. 

Well,  extraordinary  as  it  may  be,  and  it  is  truly  extraor- 
dinary, after  all  the  conferences  on  this  subject,  at  the  barn, 
at  the  meeting  house,  at  Redstone,  after  sending  delegates  to 
Plainfield,  and  afterwards  holding  another  conference  at  the 
school  house,  where  no  agreement  was  come  to,  or  under- 
standing entered  into,  except  to  go  to  the  meeting  as  usual; 
this  party  approached  the  temple  for  their  worship.  Now'let 
us  look  af  them  a  little  there.  Did  they  not  act  in  concert? 
And  did  it  not  originate  in  the  different  conferences,  where  no 
agreement  is  said  to  have  been  come  to?  It  seems  to  me,  no 
man  can  doubt  for  a  moment,  that  these  conferences  were  the 
foundation  of  that  concerted  action,  manifested  in  all  their 
measures.  "  If  we  were  opposed  in  going  into  the  meeting, 
we  were  then  to  form  and  organize  a  meeting  outside;  there- 
fore," said  Updegraff,  "  I  prepared  myself  with  paper  for  the 
clerk."  Whether  he  expected  to  be  clerk  himself,  and  was 
disappointed  in  not  being  appointed  to  office,  I  need  not  in- 
quire. But  he  was  prepared  with  paper  for  the  clerk.  They 
went  to  the  meeting  house,  and  were  not  opposed.  And  my 
friend  here,  who  has  as  much  ingenuity  as  any  other  man  I 
ever  saw,  and  about  as  much  ability,  laboured  with  as  much 
ability  as  I  ever  knew  him  to  labour  with,  to  show  that  this 
party  were  excluded.  Why?  Because  he  felt  impressed  with 
the  opinion,  that  if  they  could  not  say  they  were  kept  out,  the 
case  would  not  warrant  the  violence  of  their  entering.  Well, 
in  order  to  sustain  this  part  of  his  case,  he  has,  with  all  his 


322 


Trial  of  Friends 


ingenuity  and  power,  laboured  to  excite  our  prejudices,  on 
account  of  some  ladies  being  kept  out  by  violence,  exposed  to 
weather  and  mud;  a  species  of  indecorum  and  indecency  (1 
believe  I  employ  liis  language)  worthy  of  the  archbishop  and 
his  graceless  band  of  tyrants.  I  now  ask,  what  the  archbishop 
and  his  tyrants  had  to  do  with  it?  Have  they  been  able  to 
trace  the  garrisoning  of  the  house  to  Bates  and  Ladd?  The  re- 
sult of  every  inquiry  is,  that  no  instruction  was  given  to  ex- 
clude the  Hicksites  from  their  assembly.  Such  is  the  evidence. 
Why,  then,  introduce  this  proposition?  Why,  Jonathan  Pierce 
got  out  of  temper,  because  his  wife  was  not  permitted  to  enter 
at  the  door.  Pierce,  carrying  with  him  the  controlling  sense 
of  decorum,  left  the  meeting  house,  and  went  round  to  the 
women's  apartment,  and,  very  decorously,  shoved  away  four 
or  five  ladies,  who  were  standing  on  the  door-sill,  command- 
ing them  to  let  his  wife  in. 

This  is  decorum  and  decency;  regard  for  orderj  not  from 
the  archbishop,  but  from  the  sovereign  will  and  pleasure  of 
Jonathan  Pierce.  Well,  I  wish  you  to  remember,  that  Pierce 
went  into  the  meeting  for  a  short  time,  then  left  it,  and  went 
out.  He  could  not  sit  there,  waiting  on  the  great  Head  of  the 
church,  till  meeting  should  open;  but  like  a  restless  spirit, 
walking  to  and  fro,  he  went  out,  not  to  seek  whom  he  might 
devour,  but  who  might  aid  him  in  shoving  into  the  meeting 
house  ;  and  this,  we  are  told,  is  evidence,  that  fixes  itself  home 
upon  a  nest  of  tyrants;  and  is  to  justify  taking  possession 
of  the  meeting  by  force.  Now,  if  Pierce  had  not  gone  forward 
conformably  to  an  agreement,  which  was  no  agreement  in  the 
conference,  he  would  have  sat  down,  and  entered  into  solemn 
communion  with  himself:  ["And  let  his  wife  stay. out  in  the 
rain,"  said  Mr.  Tappan:]  he  would  have  communed  with  him- 
self: lie  would  not  have  been  throwing  his  eyes  round,  to  see 
whether  Halliday  Jackson  and  others  were  in  the  house.  And 
the  very  fact,  that  he  looked  round,. and  then  went  out,  shows 
that  he  did  not  go  with  the  spirit  that  usually  actuates  those 
that  go  to  these  assemblies.  What  was  done  in  the  case  of 
Mrs.  Pierce?  How  long  had  she  been- standing  out  door  when 
he  found  her  there?  Pierce  went  and  found  her,  and  said  to 
those  who  had  charge  of  the  door,  "I  know  this  woman  has 
a  right  to  enter."  They  made  way,  and  she  did  enter.  They 
made  way  on  his  assertion  that  she  had  a  right  to  enter.  I  do 
not  know  whether  she  had  a  right  to  enter  or  not.  We  arc  not 
looking  to  the  discipline  in  relation  to  the  female  department. 
I  venture  this  assertion,  that  no  exertion  was  made  to  keep  her 
out,  till  Pierce  was  unusually  moved  to  go  round  to  the  door 
of  the  female  apartment,  to  see  whether  any  of  his  command- 
ing authority  was  necessary.  Well,  now,  if  you  look  at  Pierce's 
testimony,  you  will  find  what  was  the  cause  of  his  action,  from 


ul  Sleubenville^  Ohio. 


323 


the  time  he  came  from  Columbiana.  He  came  from  home 
filled  with  anger:  resolved,  peaceably,  if  he  could,  forcibly,  if 
he  must,  to  carry  his  points,  and  those  of  the  Hicksites, 
against  the  orthodox. 

Well,  let  us  look  a  little  further.  When  Thomas  Shillitoe, 
an  aged  Friend,  was  engaged  in  supplicating  the  throne  of 
grace,  what  says  Levi  Pickering?  He  advanced  to  the  front 
door,  and  was  restrained  by  the  solemnity  of  the  occasion,  and 
exerted  himself  to  keep  back  the  crowd.  And  the  moment 
the  last  word  was  out  of  the  mouth  of  Shillitoe,  that  moment, 
in  attending  the  Yearly  Meeting  as  usual,  they  formed  into  a 
military  wedge,  and  rushed  into  the  house,  and  forced  the 
guards  some  twenty  or  thirty  feet  within  the  walls  of  the 
house.  Was  that  attending,  as  usual,  with  a  design  to  be 
peaceable,  and  only  proceed  to  resist  tyranny,  as  they  should 
be  instructed?  When  this  column  was  at  the  door,  there  were 
Dawson  and  Peaslee,  the  travelling  companions,  attending  the 
Yearly  Meeting  as  usual;  some  were  refusing  to  pass  in,  unless 
others  could  pass  along  with  them.  Even  Pickering  was  struck 
with  awe,  and  could  not  go  in  alone,  because  that  would  not  be 
attending  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  the  usual  way.  He  could  take 
his  friend  by  the  arm,  and  Peaslee  could  invoke  them,  in  the 
name  of  God,  not  to  do  so  ;  and  then  the  whole  could  be 
crowded  in.  That  was  attending  tiie  meeting  as  usual.  When 
they  were  in,  another  exhortation  could  be  made,  in  the  love 
of  the  God  of  peace,  not  to  crowd  so,  till  the  requisite  num- 
ber were  there;  and  then  love  was  to  give  way.  The  recur- 
rence of  this  column  of  men,  like  the  recurrence  of  succeed- 
ing waves,  crowded  in  the  mass  of  people,  those  who  had  a 
right,  and  those  who  had  no  right  to  be  there,  till  the  house 
was  filled  to  overflowing.  Then,  I  suppose,  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, having  been  assembled,  as  usual,  it  was  determined  what 
should  take  place,  in  a  meeting  assembled  as  usual. 

Well,  what  do  we  find?  We  find  Israel  French,  an  aged  and 
respectable  member  of  the  society,  I  admit.  We  find  him  get- 
ting up  in  the  meeting  wiiiiout  lapse  of  time,  without  solemn 
communion,  without  waiting  upon  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church,  without  waiting  for  the  clerk  to  open  the  meeting, 
and  saying — what?  An  unpleasant  duty  has  devolved  on  me, 
to  say,  that  I  think  the  clerk,  or  clerks,  at  the  table,  have  dis- 
qualified themselves  for  serving  this  meeting  acceptably.  This 
is  the  proposition  of  Israel  French,  with  whom  Elias  Hicks, 
Amos  Peaslee,  and  others,  lodged.  He  is  aged  and  respectable, 
I  admit.  Israel  French  is  the  companion  of  the  revolution- 
izers,  and  one  who  had  attended  the  several  conferences.  So 
soon  as  the  house  had  been  filled  with  blacks,  who  could 
"hurra  for  Jackson;"  disowned  members,  and  others  who 
had  never  been  members;  it  devolved  on  him  to  act  as  if  the 


324 


Trial  of  Friends 


meeting  were  select,  and  in  a  capacity  to  transact  business 
according  to  discipline;  although  the  discipline  specially  en- 
joins, that  the  meeting  should  be  kept  select;  and  even  Judge 
Tappan  admits,  that  it  should  be  kept  select,  though  not  by  an 
organized  garrison  put  in  possession,  not  by  guards,  but  by 
persons  stationed  to  whisper  to  those  who  are  going  into  the 
house.  Is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  Israel  French,  aged  and 
respectable  as  he  is,  could  be  so  ignorant  as  to  be  unacquainted 
with  this  regulation  of  the  Discipline?  I  propound  to  you,  and 
to  every  man;  if  Israel  French  had,  himself,  felt  that  he  was 
proceeding  in  the  usual  method,  would  he  not  have  looked  to 
see  whether  that  meeting  had  been  made  select,  before  he  pro- 
pounded any  thing  concerning  that  meeting?  I  think  the 
answer  is  inevitable:  that  no  man  would  have  made  any  propo- 
sition to  the  meeting,  connected  with  the  discipline,  without 
first  seeing  that  none  were  present  but  those  who  had  a  right 
to  be  there. 

Israel  French,  having  no  regard  to  discipline,  rose  in  the 
assembly,  as  no  man  ever  before  rose;  and  made  a  proposition, 
the  like  of  which  never  before  had  an  existence  in  any  assem- 
bly: a  proposition  to  disgrace  a  regular  officer,  made  out  of 
time,  and  in  an  unusual  manner.  I  do  not  say  that  it  sprung 
from  Elias  Hicks,  or  in  the  family  of  French,  with  Elias  Hicks, 
Amos  Peaslee,  and  others.  But  I  have  known  greater  violence 
done,  to  inference  from  facts,  than  to  say  that  it  did  spring 
from  Elias  Hicks.  What  follows?  It  is  not  a  clangour  of 
trumpets,  but  a  clangour  of  voices.  Did  you  ever  know  such 
a  quick  succession  of  unity  in  any  meeting  before?  No.  Was 
there  time  given  for  the  dissenting  party  to  make  objection  to 
the  proposition?  No.  The  society  of  Friends,  that  had  become 
famous  for  their  moderate,  orderly,  decent  uniting  in  proposi- 
tions, became  as  clamorous  as  a  political  caucus.  And  this, 
we  are  told,  is  the  usual  order  of  the  society.  And  the  party 
who  went  there,  without  design,  without  concert,  as  usual, 
were  not  satisfied  with  uniting  in  the  common  way,  but  must 
repeat  it  in  the  same  voice:  "I  unite;  I  unite;"  in  order  to  give 
it  the  appearance  of  a  vast  number  uniting.  Well,  what  was 
the  result?  There  were  1500  assembled:  and  there  were  per- 
haps two  hundred  voices,  taking  all  those  that  came  from  the 
same  mouth,  that  united  in  the  proposition.  By  this  very 
small  minority  of  the  assembly,  it  was  thought  best  to  submit 
another  proposition;  that  Hilles  should  be  appointed  clerk. 
It  did  not  devolve  on  him,  to  tell  the  house, of  which  Taylor  was 
one  of  the  grantees,  sitting  in  all  humility,  waiting  upon  the 
great  Head  of  the  church  till  order  should  be  found  in  the 
house,  that  he  might  proceed  to  open  the  meeting. 

But  we  are  told  that  he  started,  and  went  to  reading  in  an 
unusual  way.    Is  it  according  to  the  natural  interpretation  of 


M 


at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


325 


the  acts  of  men,  to  put  an  unfavourable  construction  on  his 
conduct?  I  say  that  the  Discipline  enjoins  him  to  wait,  and 
commune  with  himself,  before  he  proceeds  to  business.  Find- 
ing that  this  waiting  and  communing  could  not  obtain  peace 
and  quiet,  what  was  Taylor  to  do?  Take  his  books  and  papers 
and  go  out  of  the  house?  Surrendering  to  those  that  had  come 
in,  in  waves — members  disowned;  those  not  members;  blacks 
and  whites?  What  was  he  to  do?  If  he  regarded  his  duty,  he 
was  to  proceed  in  the  best  manner  that  he  could,  and  discharge 
the  duties  which  devolved  on  him.  Did  he  do  more?  He  got 
up,  as  we  see,  before  the  nomination  of  Hilles  was  made,  and 
read  an  opening  minute.  And  I  beg  you  to  remark,  that  the 
opening  minute  embraced,  as  connected  with  it,  the  names  of 
the  representatives,  from  the  Quarters  making  the  Yearly 
Meeting,  which  he  was  previously  to  receive  and  enter  upon 
the  minutes,  to  save  time.  This  opening  minute,  as  the  usage 
of  the  society  will  show,  contains  the  names  of  the  representa- 
tives. They  must  have  been  handed  to  him,  or  he  could  not 
have  had  them  in  his  minutes;  and  he  was  proceeding  in  the 
discharge  of  his  duty,  when  this  clamour  of  voices  from  all 
manner  of  persons,  and  a  repetition  from  the  same  voices,  pro- 
posed deposing  him  and  appointing  David  Hilles. 

I  say  this  is  unusual — the  motion  is  out  of  order:  and  I 
say  it  with  perfect  recollection  of  what  has  been  before  said, 
as  to  proceeding  to  the  appointment  of  a  clerk.  The  necessity 
did  not  occur.  The  cause  did  not  exist,  because  the  ordinary 
course  of  things  was  there,  and  within  their  reach.  The  clerk 
was  there.  True,  he  had  been  to  a  meeting,  in  the  medical 
hall,  in  New  York.  True,  he  had  called  down  from  his  place, 
a  man  who  was  denying  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  day  before. 
He  is  there,  orderly,  discreet,  meek,  lowly,  and  ready  to  per- 
form any  duty,  or  to  take  upon  himself  any  trial,  any  suffering, 
which  the  exigency  of  the  case  might  require. 

But  he  was  in  combination  with  those  tyrants:  he  sat  at  the 
clerk's  table  with  some  of  those  gentlemen  that  claimed  ex- 
clusive right.  Why,  he  went  there,  only  according  to  the 
usual  manner.  Well  now,  turn  the  tables;  suppose  my  friend 
Fox,  or  James,  or  the  good  David  Scholfield,  or  Tolerton  and 
Magar,  had  gone,  and  taken  their  seats  there,  would  that  have 
been  a  reason  for  the  Hicksites  to  have  gone  there  and  driven 
them  from  their  places?  W as  any  man  in  the  gallery,  who  had 
not  a  right  to  be  there?  No. 

But  the  assemblage  was  unusual;  they  had  taken  the  seats 
farthest  removed  from  the  door,  so  that  when  Israel  Upde- 
graff  entered,  there  was  but  one  vacant  seat;  and  Israel,  in  all 
humility,  and  in  the  usual  manner,  took  that  seat  to  himself: 
he  who  tells  you  that  he  went  there  to  use  force — he  went  there 
determined  to  place  himself  in  a  conspicuous  station,  where 


326 


Trial  of  Friends 


he  could  observe  what  was  going  on,  and  take  his  part  as  one 
of  the  leaders.  Israel,  with  this  avowed  feeling,  this  sense  of 
injury  rankling  in  his  bosom,  took  with  him  the  requisite 
quantity  of  paper,  and  went  and  found  a  seat  vacant,  and  took 
possession  of  it,  for  what  purpose,  we  shall  see,  by  and  by. 
That  very  act  of  Updegraff  shows  that  it  is  usual:  it  is  the 
usual  mode  of  assembling,  for  every  person  to  crowd  nearest 
the  speaker.  Near  the  door  there  is  never  a  crowd.  And 
are  we  usurpers:  coming  here  in  an  unusual  manner?  No, 
sir.  I  venture  to  say,  that  in  no  meeting,  where  seats  are  not 
appropriated  to  individuals  and  families,  do  you  find  any  dif- 
ference in  the  mode  of  proceeding.  These  persons  went  and 
filled  the  seats  farthest  from  the  door,  from  a  sense  of  deco- 
rum, that  they  might  not  interpose  a  barrier  to  others;  and 
they  filled  the  seats  in  order,  commencing  in  the  remotest 
parts  of  the  house  from  the  entrance. 

The  steps  were  also  filled  by  the  orthodox  party.  I  cannot 
give  the  emphasis  of  the  other  counsel.  Was  that  unusual? 
We  have  it  from  aged  Friends,  that  there  is  no  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, where  they  are  not  filled  in  that  way.  And  by  whom 
were  they  now  filled?  By  the  aged  and  feeble.  Such  persons 
take  those  seats,  because  nearest  the  place  where  the  busi- 
ness is  to  be  transacted,  that  they  may  hear  and  enjoy  their 
rights,  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  meeting,  interposing 
objections,  or  adding  assent  to  propositions  before  the  meet- 
ing. That  is  the  whole  of  it.  No  attempt  was  made  to  hin- 
der any  man;  no  exertion  of  power  to  intercept,  or  interrupt 
any  man.  And  it  is  in  vain  for  the  counsel  to  press  to  the 
consideration  of  the  court,  a  proposition  that  rests,  as  this 
does,  on  no  foundation  whatever. 

I  will  not  advert  to  the  uproar  that  took  place  in  the  house. 
It  is,  indeed,  lamentable,  that  such  an  uproar  should  have 
taken  place  in  that  house,  or  in  any  other  place  of  worship. 
It  was  no  credit  to  those  who  made  the  uproar,  I  care  not 
who  they  were,  Hicksites  or  orthodox;  members  of  the  so- 
ciety or  not.  The  uproar  was  discreditable  to  the  assembly, 
and  to  the  age  in  which  we  live.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  it 
is  according  to  the  usages  and  ancient  customs  of  the  society. 
The  case  must  indeed  be  extraordinary,  and  foreign  from  the 
usages  of  the  society  of  Friends,  that  can  rest  its  hope  upon 
the  position,  that  this  assembly  and  uproar  was  according  to 
the  usage  of  the  forbearing  and  long-suffering  society  of 
Friends. 

While  the  clerk  was  so  reading,  there  arose  the  clamour  of 
voices  uniting  in  the  appointment  of  David  Hilles.  If  the 
meeting  had  conceived  that,  according  to  the  usual  custom 
and  practice  of  the  meeting,  this  measure  was  in  order,  and 
had  been  united  in  by  the  assembly,  they  would  have  asked. 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


327 


in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  and  tqlerance,  and  moderation,  that 
have  marked  the  course  of  the  society,  that  Taylor,  who  had  the 
papers  and  records  as  clerk,  should  give  place  to  him  who  was 
appointed  to  supersede  him.  I  ask  you,  if  that  would  be  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  society  of  Friends?  Look 
through  the  whole  mass  of  testimony,  and  find  where  such  a 
request  was  ever  made.  There  is  no  evidence  of  such  a  thing. 
And  is  not  the  absence  of  it  an  item  of  proof,  that  those  who 
were  the  actors  were  impressed  with  a  belief  that  they  could 
not  repel — that  they  were  not  acting  in  the  order  of  the  society, 
but  with  the  violence  of  a  mob  ?  Not  in  the  order  of  a  religious 
assembly?  It  seems  to  me  that  these  are  the  inevitable  conclu- 
sions. 

They  would  have  made  this  request  of  Taylor,  if  they  were 
orderly,  proceeding  in  the  usual  custom  of  the  society;  if  they 
were  convinced  that  they  had  settled  it  according  to  custom, 
and  that  they  were  the  society  of  Friends,  acting  in  unison 
with  its  discipline  and  belief.  It  was  not  forgotten,  as  is  ma- 
nifest from  the  whole  evidence  of  the  proceedings,  and  from 
the  discipline  obligatory  upon  all  those  found  within  the  limits 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  No  such  request  was  made.  No 
Friend,  aged  like  French,  or  turl)ulent  and  eager  like  Irish — 
no,  not  the  good  David  Scholfield  could  ask  for  the  papers 
and  documents  belonging  to  the  society.  This  conduct  could 
have  resulted  from  nothing  on  earth,  but  the  conscious  con- 
viction that  makes  cowards  of  men:  that  it  was  unrighteous 
and  wrong;  that  they  had  no  right  to  do  it;  no  right  to  the 
place,  whence  they  sought  to  drive  the  incumbent. 

This  seemed'to  be  the  impression  of  the  meeting,  till  Israel 
Updegraff",  moderate  and  cunning  as  he  is,  with  a  clump  of  • 
paper  in  his  hand,  rushed  from  one  end  to  the  other  of  the  gal- 
lery, over  the  limbs  of  the  ministers  and  elders,  up  to  the 
clerk's  table.  Israel  Updegraff  was  not  violent,  but  meek  ; 
yet  could  make  this  move  to  get  there — for  what  purpose,  I 
ask?  According  to  the  usage  of  the  society,  to  take  posses- 
sion of  the  table  and  documents?  When  he  got  there,  he  asked 
no  such  thing.  For  what  pui'pose?  Was  he  expecting  to  be 
the  clerk?  No — he  was  not  even  expecting  that,  if  he  maybe 
credited.  He  might  have  thought,  that  if  David  Hilles  had  not 
nerve  enough  to  get  up,  or  to  submit  to  the  nerve  of  others, 
that  he  would  be  in  the  vicinity  of  the  table,  with  paper,  so  as 
to  go  into  action.  He  may  have  thought  of  this.  I  do  not 
say  it.  It  may  be  suspected  of  one,  who  advanced  rudely  and 
indecorously,  as  he  did.  He  was  there,  where  he  found  Isaac 
James,  who  had  no  more  right  in  that  meeting  than  I  have. 
Were  they  requesting  of  the  clerks  to  surrender?  No;  but 
James  was  clambering  with  all  the  violence  of  a  tiger,  over 
the  heads  of  ancient  Friends,  who  were  occupying  the  galle- 


328 


Tricl  of  Friends 


ries.  There  is  where  he  is  found.  And  the  counsel  tell  us 
this  was  orderly  and  decorous,:  no  disturbance:  and  they  ask 
you  to  go  further,  and  s'hy  that  Ladd  is  a  tyrant,  because  he 
was  occupying  a  seat  in  the  gallery,  and  raised  his  hands 
against  the  breast  of  James,  who  was  trampling  his  brethren 
under  foot,  to  restrain  him  in  hi,s  rude,  savage,  and  beastly 
advance.    This  they  ask  you  to  do. 

What  next?  Why,  David  HiIles,who  had  attended  the  con- 
ferences, where  they  did  not  agree  to  do  any  thing,  is  in  the 
room,  remote  from  the  clerk's  place.  Dr.  Carroll  goes  to 
him,  and  calls  on  him  to  take  his  place.  He  says,  I  can't  get 
there.  Follow  me,  and  we  will  carry  you  there.  Some  orga- 
nization resulted  from  an  agreement  at  the  caucus.  The 
military  wedge  was  again  formed,  and  when  Dr.  Carroll  had 
got  his  clerk,  David  Hilles,  at  the  head  of  this  column,  it  is 
said,  "rush  on,  go  ahead,  or  burst  your  boilerj"  and  this  is 
said  to  be  an  orderly  procedure.  There  never  was  a  grosser 
libel  than  this  very  allegation.  Well,  they  advanced  to  what 
my  friend  Judge  Tappan  is  pleased  to  call  the  orthodox,  im- 
pregnable fortress,  partly  by  force  and  violence,  and  partly 
by  an  alarm  that  the  galleries  were  falling.  They  were  re- 
pulsed. James  had  before  advanced,  and  maintained  his  po- 
sition upon  the  platform  of  the  citadel.  They  advance  in 
column  with  the  new  clerk,  and  Israel  UpdegrafF  was  standing 
ready  to  supply  the  clerk  with  paper.  The  invulnerable 
forces,  as  they  have  been  called,  endeavoured  to  protect  them- 
selves from  being  trampled  upon.  Tread  on  a  worm,  and  it 
will  turn;  or  tread  on  a  Friend,  and  he  will  resist  the  pressure 
upon  him,  and  endeavour  to  throw  it  off ;  though  it  is  enjoined 
by  the  discipline  of  the  society  to  use  no  violence.  Well,  what 
■were  these  Friends  to  do?  Were  they  to  fall  prostrate,  and 
make  a  bridge  of  bodies  for  this  advancing  column?  This 
would  hardly  be  requested.  They  could  not  mix  with  the 
crowd  now,  because  it  was  a  vast  military  wedge,  advancing 
with  irresistible  impetuosity.  Then  what  could  they  do? 
Nothing  but  use  their  four  limbs  to  protect  themselves  from 
the  advance  of  the  hostile  party,  and  the  destruction  that  seem- 
ed to  await  them.  And  yet  they  are  rioters,  disturbers  of  the 
peace,  and  tyrants.  And  what  is  the  party  so  repulsed;  and 
repulsed  by  a  party  who  had  no  power  of  action  to  repel? 
David  Hilles  showed  no  unwillingness  to  be  carried  forward 
to  the  seat  of  power.  We  are  told  that  he  was  passive;  that 
he  did  not  desire  the  power  about  to  be  conferred  on  him; 
that  he  had  no  ambition,  but  they  led  him  forward — no  lust  of 
power.  Csesar  put  by  the  crown  that  was  first  offered  him; 
again  he  put  it  by,  a  little  less  forcibly;  an  acclamation  of  the 
multitude,  endeavouring  to  stimulate  him  forward  to  accept 
the  bauble,  gave  spirit  to  Csesar.    The  imperial  purple  and 


at  Steiibenville,  Ohio. 


329 


the  diadem,  dazzled  his  vision,  and  the  third  time  he  yielded 
his  most  reluctant  assent.  Passive,  no  doubtj  entertaining 
not  the  slightest  particle  of  ambition,  never  having  indulged 
in  the  lust  of  power,  or  the  insignia  of  it,  that  were  tendered. 
So,  too,  with  David  Hillcs;  passive,  never  lusting  for  power, 
never  agreeing  to  be  an  instrument  of  interruption  to  the 
meeting;  but,  borne  along,  not  by  the  shouts  of  the  multitude, 
but  by  the  application  of  the  physical  force  of  the  multitude. 
No  thirst  of  power:  but  meek  and  humble.  There  were  found 
in  his  hands  the  papers  to  enable  him  to  exercise  the  functions 
of  clerk.  But  when  the  column  was  resisted,  at  the  stove,  an 
unusual  place,  where  no  man  ever  attempted  to  perform  the 
duties  of  such  an  office — when  he  got  there,  he  was  so  eager, 
that  he  could  stop — so  eager  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  sta- 
tion, that  he  could  take  a  scrap  of  paper  from  a  pocket  book, 
and  seek  to  write  an  opening  minute;  as  if  this  act  would  sanc- 
tion his  authority  and  power,  and  every  improper  act. 

Sir,  this  gives  an  interpi-etation  which  cannot  be  mistaken. 
There  was  a  lust  of  power  and  ambition;  and  there  was  the 
cunning  of  a  Jesuit,  to  seek  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  it.  It 
speaks  a  language  which  cannot  be  misunderstood.  If  he  had  the 
people  on  his  side,  why  not  wait  till  he  got  to  the  clerk's  place.'' 
He  feared  that  the  power  might  be  wrested  from  him.  No 
other  interpretation  can  be  given.  What  did  he  do  next?  He 
read  an  opening  minute,  eager  to  establish  the  right  which  he 
Ijad  to  that  power.  The  column,was  reformed;  a  young  man 
was  found  climbing  over  the  heads  of  the  aged  Friends,  who 
clung  to  their  fastnesses,  but  were  driven  by  irresistible  force 
to  yield;  yet  not  till  the  clerk  had  been  driven  from  the  table, 
where  he  ordinarily  wrote.  David  Hilles  got  there,  altogether 
passive;  and  sought,  with  remarkable  avidity,  for  the  drawer 
of  the  table  which  had  been  broken  into  ruins,  and  turns  it  up 
to  write  another  opening  minute;  feeling  conscious  that  the 
act  at  the  stove  would  not  be  tolerated  by  a  religious  society ; 
he  does  it  over  again  ;  he  seizes  the  only  vestige  of  the  clerk's 
table,  eager  in  proclaiming  to  the  astonished  multitude,  that 
coming  in,  in  an  unusual  manner,  and  being  elected  clerk  in 
an  unusual  manner,  in  an  unusual  manner  he  would  discharge 
his  duty. 

Well,  what  follows?  This  speculator,  and  matchless,  impu- 
dent tyrant,  Ladd,  says,  we  will  contend  no  more.  Let  the 
Yearly  Meeting  adjourn.  Did  David  Hilles  say,  I  am  clerk 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting?  did  any  man  say  aught  against  Ladd's 
proposition?  Not  a  syllable  is  heard.  AH  was  quiet.  Con- 
science spake  to  David  Hilles,  a  language  which  he  could  not 
restrain  or  misinterpret,  at  that  moment — I  will  be  silent,  and 
let  this  orderly  society  of  Friends  adjourn ;  and  when  they  are 
gone,  we  will  proceed  with  our  meeting,  and  proclaim  to  the 


330' 


Trial  of  Friends 


world,  that  we  are  the  society  of  Friends;  and  that  we  have 
been  disturbed;  and  we  will  rely  on  this  act  of  forbearance,  to 
bear  us  out  in  this  assumption.  The  representatives  were 
called.  The  Yearly  Meeting,  that  was  assembled  there,  and 
had  possession  of  the  records,  and  was  in  unison  with  the  faith 
and  practice  of  Friends,  was  adjourned,  and  no  opposition  was 
made. 

Well,  who  went  off?  Ask  Levi  Pickering  who  went  off — 
and  he  is  not  a  witness  on  our  side.  He  replies,  the  majority; 
a  considerable  majority  went  away.  Now,  take  this  fact,  and 
make  another  inquiry.  Were  the  Yearly  Meeting  united,  in 
weight  of  character  or  numbers,  to  appoint  David  Hilles? 
There  can  be  but  one  answer.  No  man  has  said  that  there 
was  an  approval  by  the  orthodox,  except  by  one,  who  was 
picked  up  in  the  crowd,  uniting  in  the  proceeding,  uniting  in 
the  appointment  of  David  Hilles.  No  others  were  considered 
as  uniting  in  the  acts  of  opposing  Taylor  and  elevating  Hilles. 
I  then  put  the  inquiry:  was  that  the  sense  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing of  Ohio?  The  whole  face  of  the  transaction,  and  every 
thing  connected  with  it,  shows  conclusively,  what  is  not  only 
apparent  to  our  senses,  but  to  their  senses,  that  it  was  not  the 
voice  of  the  meeting.  I  know  there  have  been  some  efforts 
made  to  show,  that  there  was  nearly  an  equal  number;  but 
look  at  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Hamilton.  What  was  the  usual 
conversation  of  the  village?  It  was,  that  three-fourths  of  the 
women  Friends,  and  a  large  majority  of  the  men  Friends,  went 
off  with  the  orthodox.  This  was  a  matter  of  common  noto- 
riety; and  it  accords  with  the  testimony  of  Pickering  himself, 
who,  I  believe,  designs  to  tell  nothing  but  the  truth;  and  who 
has  told  you,  that  a  majority  went  off  with  the  orthodox.  Is 
it  not,  then,  worse  than  idle,  to  pretend  that  this  was  the  act 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting?  I  think  it  is  a  wilful  perversion  of 
that,  which  appears  as  manifest  as  the  light  of  the  sun  at  noon- 
day. There  was  a  majority  that  had  assembled  there,  and 
was  permitted  to  go  off. 

I  will  show  one  fact,  to  prove,  that  the  party  remaining,  did 
not  consider  themselves  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio:  and  that 
they  are  not  in  fact,  and  in  law,  the  Yearly  Meeting.  You 
will  find  it  stated,  even  in  the  testimony  of  one  in  the  retinue 
of  Elias  Hicks,  that  that  party  reorganized  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing. What  is  the  reorganized  Yearly  "Meeting  of  Ohio?  It 
must  have  been  disorganized,  and  broken  up,  before  it  could 
be  reorganized.  Yet  the  Yearly  Meeting  had  orderly  and  de- 
corously adjourned,  and  gone  out  of  the  house.  They  were 
impressed  with  this  consideration;  and  thus  the  witnesses 
testify,  that  they  reorganized,  not  lo  do  the  business  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  but  of  the  reorganized  meeting.  Therefore 
it  is,  that  the  representatives  of  the  separating  party,  refuse 


at  Steubenville^  Ohio. 


331 


to  give  their  reports  to  the  clerk.  This  separating  party,  who 
had  set  up  oppositions  in  the  Quarterly  and  Monthly  Meet- 
ings, remained  there,  and  gave  their  reports  to  the  newly  ap- 
pointed clerk.  Does  not  this  speak  volumes,  that  cannot  be 
misunderstood?  Halliday  Jackson  was  there,  as  a  representa- 
tive of  the  reorganized  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  conspired 
with  those  who  sought  to  reorganize  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Ohio.  Here,  finding  kindred  spirits,  he  seeks  not  to  commune 
with  the  others;  he  does  not  attend  the  ofiicial  conferences 
and  meetings,  according  to  order,  but  attends  the  caucusses 
and  cabals,  held  at  the  meeting  house,  and  is  with  those  who 
surround  the  house,  when  the  Yearly  Meeting  is  assembling. 
I  care  not,  therefore,  whether  Barnard  speaks  of  reorganized 
meetings,  such  as  the  one  in  Philadelphia — it  is  the  same 
thing — for  this  party  claim  to  be  in  unison  and  correspon- 
dence with  the  reorganized  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  and  not 
with  the  old  Yearly  Meeting  of  Pennsylvania.  They  acknow- 
ledge, and  boast  of  it,  that  they  are  in  correspondence  with 
Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting,  where  the  majority  are  Hicksites, 
and  where  they  have  the  control.  But  this  does  not  alter  the 
casej  it  is,  as  I  said  before,  an  attempt  to  set  up  a  reorganized 
society  of  Friends,  not  united  in  principle  with  the  established 
society,  but  professing  the  principles  of  deism,  while  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends  profess  the  principles  of  Christianity.  Well, 
let  them  have  the  benefit  of  it. 

But,  I  have  one  other  item,  to  which  I  will  call  the  attention 
of  your  honour.  The  discipline  makes  it  the  duty  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting  to  keep  records  of  its  proceedings,  and  we 
have  exhibited  the  records  from  the  first  meeting,  down  to  this 
period,  for  the  inspection  of  the  court.  Is  there  any  thing  on 
record,  showing  the  appointment  of  Hilles,  as  clerk?  No.  Is 
there  any  other  record  of  the  fact.'^  The  legal  course  is,  to 
presume,  that  if  exhibited,  it  would  afford  evidence  against 
the  party.  We  then  ask,  why  is  this  important  item  of  evi- 
dence withholden?  I  know  a  case  might  exist,  where  papers 
and  records  of  a  society  might  be  carried  off,  and  the  society 
be  divested  of  possession,  so  that  it  would  not  be  in  its  power 
to  exhibit  them  in  court.  But,  I  know,  where  records  are 
kept  in  possession,  they  might  be  exhibited — so  they  might 
be  here.  If  these  records  had  been  exhibited  here,  ten  to  one, 
it  would  have  appeared,  from  the  examination,  that  no  entry 
was  made  of  the  appointment  of  David  Hilles,  as  clerk,  to  su- 
persede Taylor.  Well,  if  there  is  a  record,  affording  evidence 
o-f  this  fact,  they  have  withholden  it,  or  neglected  to  exhibit  it. 
I  ask,  is  it  not  a  legal  conclusion,  that,  exhibiting  on  one  side, 
and  withholding  on  the  other  side — those  who  have  them  and 
show  them,  are  in  fact  th^  society  of  Friends?  I  think  it  is; 
I  may  err,  but  such  is  my  belief. 


332 


Trial  of  Friendi 


It  is  said,  on  the  part  of  the  defence,  that  no  individual  act 
can  be  charged  upon  these  defendants.  That  this  is  a  case  of 
an  ordinary  difference  of  opinion,  where  the  parties  were  pro- 
ceeding to  establish  their  superiority  upon  a  proposition  be- 
fore the  meeting.  Now,  is  this  so?  It  is  said  that  men 
proceeding  ever  so  disorderly,  and  having  a  right  in  these 
meetings,  cannot  be  considered  as  chargeable  by  the  statute 
of  Ohio  for  disturbing  that  meeting.  Is  it  so?  I  put  this 
question.  Suppose  a  man  comes  into  a  religious  assembly,  and 
proposes  that  an  individual  in  it  shall  be  hung  by  the  neck 
till  he  is  dead,  and  excites  those  about  him,  by  his  clamour, 
io  unite  in  that  proposition,  and  proceeds  to  carry  his  design 
into  execution,  under  the  pretence  that  it  was  the  decision  of 
the  meeting.  Would  that  be  a  disturbance  of  the  meeting? 
He,  that  in  such  case  pretends  that  the  meeting  had  cogni- 
zance of  the  subject,  and  were  proceeding  decorously,  and 
that  the  individual  deprived  of  enjoying  life,  ought  to  be  exe- 
cuted publicly,  is  to  be  justified.  The  doctrine  of  the  gentle- 
man goes  to  say,  that  he  should  not  be  considered  a  disorderly 
person^  though  violence  may  extend  to  the  shedding  of  blood, 
taking  the  life  of  a  fellow  creature,  or  any  other  species  of 
violence.  And  if  you  have  the  matchless  impudence  to  come 
into  court,  and  say,  that  it  was  within  the  scope  of  your  power, 
as  a  constituent  member  of  the  meeting,  you  are  not  amenable 
to  the  laws.   I  do  not  believe  it. 

But  there  was  no  individual  act  as  to  James.  Surely  there 
can  be  no  question  that  he  advanced,  individually,  and  clam- 
bered over  the  heads  of  Friends.  David  Hilles  was  the  will- 
ing instrument}  not  repelling  those,  who  pressed  upon  what 
they  call  his  passive  disposition  and  pliable  nature.  He  is 
then  guilty,  as  a  participator  in  the  act  of  those  concerned  in 
the  outrage  and  disturbance  of  that  assembly.  I  believe  I  am 
right,  and  that  this  is  sustained  by  the  common  principles  of 
law.  Look  at  Hilles.  Did  he  individually  act,  when  Dr.  Car- 
roll went  to  him?  He  proceeded  along  with  Carroll,  to  place 
himself  in  a  position  to  be  shoved.  He  put  himself  in  pos- 
session of  paper,  to  proceed.  And  when  did  he  efl'ect  his  ob- 
ject ?  On  the  destruction  of  the  table,  that  was  there,  ordinarily 
written  on.  When  Taylor,  one  of  the  most  venerable  members 
of  the  society,  was  thrust  from  his  place,  and  trampled  upon 
with  violence,  hardly  leaving  him  breath  in  his  body;  and  it 
was  nothing  but  an  audible  tone  of  voice,  about  commit- 
ting murder,  which  induced  them  to  stop.  David  Hilles 
was  at  the  head,  and  was  a  leader  of  the  mob,  passively  pushed 
on  by  the  exertion  and  physical  force  of  those  who  attended 
the  meeting,  with  the  intention  to  do  no  unreasonable  act. — It 
was  through  God's  mercy,  that  this  aged,  pious  and  respecta- 
ble individual  was  spared.    It  is  an  evidence,  and  a  strong 


(U  SteuhenvlUe,  Ohio. 


333 


evidence,  that  there  was  a  superintending-  Providence  there,  that 
arrested  this  brutal  force,  and  prevented  the  accomplishment 
of  such  an  act.  And  it  must  I)e  considered  the  mercy  of  Cod, 
that  instead  of  being  now  charged  with  a  disturbance,  the 
defendants  are  not  charged  with  the  murder  of  one  of  their 
fellow  creatures! 

Here,  I  think,  taking  this  view  of  the  subject  in  relation  to 
these  individuals,  enough  attaches  to  them;  and  so,  if  you 
please,  to  every  other  one  who  united  with  them  in  the  forma- 
tion of  this  mob,  and  in  moving  them  to  the  accomplishment 
of  it.  Still,  this  does  not  affect  the  question  of  their  guilt;  they 
are  to  stand  convicted  or  acquitted  on  their  own  guilt,  no 
matter  how  many  may  have  been  concerned  with  them,  and 
equally  guilty.  I  say,  if  they  are  not  guilty,  let  them  be  ac- 
quitted. Let  them  not  be  punished  for  the  guilt  of  others,  but 
for  their  own  guilt  and  acts.  And  for  those  acts  of  others, 
they  are  entitled  to  claim  individual  distinction,  when  a  deci- 
sion concerning  them  shall  take  place. 

It  is  said  that  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  Ohio,  a  reli- 
gious assembly,  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  worship  or  bu- 
siness, is^no  more  under  the  protection  of  the  law  than  a  po- 
litical or  other  assembly  of  persons.  I  apprehend  this  is  not 
true.  •  All  persons,  legally  and  lawfully  assembled,  even  the 
caucusses  of  the  Hicksite  party — all  persons  have  a  right  to 
assemble  themselves  together,  and  to  consult  on  their  own  or 
the  common  good,  and  the  law  protects  them  in  it.  Yet  not 
to  the  same  degree  as  it  would  protect  a  religious  assembly. 
It  is  the  general  and  natural  right,  which  attaches  to  all  per- 
sons in  a  state  of  community  with  each  other,  that  protects 
those  not  of  a  religious  character.  But  how  is  it  in  this  state? 
The  legislature  thought  it  of  sufficient  consequence,  under  a 
provision  of  the  constitution  securing  this  protection  to  all,  to 
make  this  a  subject  of  special  legislation.  And  this  prosecu- 
tion is  under  an  act  thus  made. 

It  has  been  said  by  one  gentleman,  that  no  man  can  be  put 
on  his  trial,  except  by  the  intervention  of  a  grand  jury.  Why 
not?  For,  surely  the  law  provides  specially  for  this  court. 
And  is  it  to  be  said  that  this  is  unconstitutional?  Has  it  not 
obligatory  force?  The  law  having  obligatory  force,  provides 
a  special  protecting  shield  over  religious  assemblies.  It  can- 
not be  disputed.  They  have  a  right  to  protection  when  as- 
sembled: and  while  assemljling,  individuals  have  their  rights 
secured  to  them. 

Now,  I  ask  you,  sir,  were  these  people  that  .assembled  in 
the  society  of  Friends  a  religious  assembly?  I  ask  you,  whe- 
ther, being  a  religious  assembly,  assembled  or  assembling, 
they  were  within  the  protective  scope  of  the  shield  of  the  law, 
to  which  I  have  adverted?  I  think  there  can  be  no  hesitation 
42 


334 


Trial  of  Fricmh 


ill  uusweriiig  eacli  of  these  propositions  in  the  affirmative^ 
Were  tliey  disturbed r  Why,  it  would  outrage  every  reason- 
able consideration,  to  say  that  they  were  not  disturljed. 

They  were  a  religious  assembly,  and  were  disturbed — by 
whom?  Did  not  James  disturb  them?  Did  not  Hilles  disturb 
them?  If  any  man  can  say  that  these  two  persons  did  not  dis- 
turb them,  then  surely  the  law  does  not  apply  to  them.  But 
if  the  response  is,  that  they  did  disturb  that  meeting,  and 
with  a  design  to  interrupt  its  harmony,  they  then  are  culpa- 
ble. And  they  are  to  be  rendered  obnoxious  to  the  provisions 
of  tliis  law,  whether  held  out  to  the  world  as  a  persecuted 
party,  or  not.  I  ask  nothing  but  the  application  of  the  law  to 
themj  I  think  them  guilty,  and  I  think  no  man,  looking  at  this 
case,  and  taking  it  with  all  the  allowances  that  can  be  made, 
for  those  who  were  engaged — giving  all  the  indulgence  that 
the  law  authorizes  to  be  given  lo  the  influence  of  the  uncon- 
trollable passions  of  man,  can  come  to  any  other  conclusion, 
than,  that  these  men  did  disturb  the  meeting,  and  that  they 
went  there  with  an  intention  to  disturb  it,  and  to  take  control 
by  violence,  if  necessary.  If  so,  I  think  the  decision  that  shall 
follow  this  investigation,  and  apply  to  these  men,  js  one  ex- 
ceedingly important  to  this  community.  I  think  it  one  that 
will  settle,  and  perhaps  for  centuries,  the  propositionj  that 
looks  to  the  orderly  and  quiet  assemblage  of  religious  meet- 
ings, and  the  transaction  of  their  business  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  law. 

The  gentlemen  tell  us,  that  it  is  enjoined  on  the  members  of 
this  society, not  to  go  to  law,  and  that  we  have  been  trampling  on 
the  discipline  of  the  society.  Has  this  argument  been  maintain- 
ed? Are  these  people  to  be  thrown  ofl',as  outcasts,  and  trampled 
under  foot,  their  lives  jeoparded  and  sacrificed,  rather  than 
appeal  to  the  laws  of  the  land  for  protection?  Let  him  who 
holds  a  doctrine  of  that  kind,  advance  it.  Neither  you  nor  I 
will  maintain  it.  What  were  they  to  do?  Were  they  to  rise 
and  use  violence  for  violence,  and  repel  aggression  by  force  ? 
No,  sir,  the  spirit  that  actuates  their  assemblies — the  spirit 
breathed  into  their  early  associations,  of  meekness,  love,  for- 
bearance, long-suffering  and  endurance,  answers  this  proposi- 
tion; that  they  were  not  to  meet  violence  with  violence;  revil- 
ing with  reviling,  force  with  force.  And  it  is  commendable 
that,  instead  of  using  these,  their  physical  powers,  to  repel  ag- 
gression, they  sought  to  put  themselves  under  the  shield  of 
the  law — to  appeal  to  the  laws  of  the  land:  and  rest,  as  they  do 
rest,  with  a  perfect  consciousness  of  their  own  right,  and  a 
perfect  conviction  that  they  will  have  extended  to  them,  the 
law,  under  which  this  complaint  has  been  laid;  if  in  your  judg- 
ment they  shall  have  made  out  a  case  which  entitles  them  to 
that  protection. 


(((  Sieuhenville,  Ohio. 


335 


Decision  of  the  Honourablk  Jeremiah  H.  Hallock,  Esq. 
Stale  of  Ohio  vs.  David  Hilles  and  Isaac  James. 

This  complaint  is  founded  upon  the  third  section  of  the  sta- 
tute for  the  '•^Prevention  of  Immoral  Practices  "  which  enacts 
"  that  if  any  person  or  persons  shall,  at  any  time,  interrupt  or 
molest  any  religious  society,  or  any  member  thereof,  or  any 
persons  when  meeting,  or  met  together,  for  the  purpose  of 
worship,  or  performing  any  duties  enjoined  on  or  appertaining 
to  them  as  members  of  such  society,  the  person  or  persons  so 
offending  may  be  arrested,"  8cc.  Sec. 

The  defendants  have  pleaded  not  guilty. 

In  order  to  a  proper  understanding  of  this  case,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  notice  the  circumstances  that  led  to  the  transaction, 
which  is  complained  of  as  a  disturbance  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing of  the  society  of  Friends.  It  appears  that  the  society  of 
Friends  had  become  divided  into  two  parties,  in  consequence 
of  difference  of  opinion  as  to  some  doctrinal  points.  The  one 
party  (from  Elias  Hicks,  who  has  been  considered  a  leader) 
have  been  called  "  Ilicksites."  The  other  have  been  generally 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  "  Orthodox."  These  names  I  use, 
for  the  purpose  of  distinction,  merely,  and  to  avoid  circumlo- 
cution. Each  party  claim,  that  they  hold  to  the  ancient  doc- 
trines of  the  society,  and  that  their  opponents  have  departed 
therefrom. 

The  orthodox,  in  several  of  the  Monthly  Meetings,  where 
they  had  the  control,  have  proceeded  to  deal  with  some  of 
their  members  for  maintaining  doctrines  contrary  to  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  society,  as  was  claimed.  Some  had  been  dis- 
owned. One  Monthly  Meeting  had  been  laid  down,  without 
its  consent,  by  the  Quarterly  Meeting  to  which  it  belonged. 
These  proceedings,  on  the  part  of  the  orthodox,  were  claimed 
to  be  oppressive,  and  contrary  to  the  discipline  of  the  society. 
Great  excitement  prevailed.  The  disowned  members  had 
refused  to  submit  to  their  sentences,  but  had  not  appealed 
from  them,  as  they  had  a  right  to  do,  by  the  discipline  of  the 
society.  Separate  Quarterly  Meetings  were  established,  in 
four,  out  of  the  five  Quarterly  Meetings  of  which  the  Yearly 
Meeting  is  composed.  The  same  was  done  in  many  of  the 
Monthly  Meetings.  Each  society  claimed  to  be  the  true  so- 
ciety of  Friends. 

In  this  state  of  the  society,  both  parties  looked  forward  witli 
anxiety  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  expecting  tiuu  there  would  Ik-, 
at  that  meeting,  a  trial  of  strength. 

Tho.  orthodox  seem  to  have  apprehciulod  that/ti/  i,c  would  be 
used,  to  i)rocure  admittance  for  those  who  were  \indei' dealing, 
or  had  been  disowtied.  They  accordingly  increas(;d  the  num- 
ber of  guards  stationed  at  the  doors,  to  prevent  the  admittance 


336 


Trial  of  Friemln 


of  persons  having,  by  the  discipline  of  the  society,  no  right  to 
be  present,  to  wit,  members  under  dealing,  or  disowned  per- 
sons. 

The  other  party  resolved,  that  all  should  attend,  as  usual, 
without  regard  to  having  been  disowned,  or  being  under  deal- 
ing. They  claimed  that  the  proceedings  of  the  orthodox,  in 
dealing  with,  and  disowning  members,  had  been  unjust  and 
irregular — not  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  society.  It 
does  not  appear,  that  any  general  resolution  to  use  force  had 
been  adopted,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  leading  members  dis- 
couraged the  idea. 

The  parties  assembled  on  the  day  of  meeting.  The  guards, 
who  attempted  to  keep  out  the  members  under  dealing,  were 
forced,  and  the  disowned  members  entered  the  house,  which 
was  filled  to  overflowing,  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  persons 
being  present. 

As  soon  as  the  meeting  had  become  somewhat  composed, 
and  while  Jonathan  Taylor,  the  clerk  of  the  Yearly  Meeting, 
was  preparing  to  open  the  meeting  in  the  usual  form,  Israel 
French,  a  member  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  stated,  that  a  pain- 
ful duty  devolved  upon  him — that  of  objecting  to  the  clerks 
at  the  table.  That  such  had  been  the  conduct  of  the  clerks 
since  the  last  Yearly  Meeting,  that  they  had  become  disqualified 
to  serve  the  meeting  acceptably,  or  even  to  open  it,  and  pro- 
posed that  new  clerks  should  be  appointed.  No  specific  charge 
was  made.  About  one  hundred  persons,  or  more,  expressed 
their  assent,  by  saying  "  I  concur,"  in  rapid  succession,  some- 
times several  speaking  at  once.  Immediately,  or  very  shortly 
after  this  expression  of  concurrence  had  ceased,  William  B. 
Irish,  another  member  of  the  "Hicksite"  party,  proposed 
David  miles,  as  clerk.  This  was  concurred  in,  in  the  same 
way.  About  this  time,  either.just  before  Irish's  motion,  or 
while  members  were  expressing  their  concurrence,  Taylor 
rose  in  his  place,  at  the  table,  and  read  an  opening  minute,  and 
he,  or  the  assistant  clerk,  proceeded  to  call  the  representa- 
tives from  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  who  all  answered  ex- 
cept five — two  of  whom  sent  excuses — the  number  answering 
exceeding  fifty.  Hilles  was  called  upon  repeatedly,  by  indi- 
viduals, to  take  his  place  at  the  clerk's  table,  in  order  to  act 
as  clerk  of  the  meeting. 

The  clerk's  table  is  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  raised  seat, 
appropriated  to  ministers  and  strangers,  at  one  side  of  the 
house.  The  seats  appropriated  to  the  elders,  are  situated  in  front 
of  the  ministers'  seat,  and  next  to  it,  and  are  raised  above  the 
seats  in  the  body  of  the  house.  These  seats  were  occupied  by 
the  ministers,  elders  and  strangers,  as  usual,  nearly  all  of  whom 
were  of  the  "  orthodox"  party.  Other  members  of  that  party, 
had  stationed  themselves  in  those  seats,  and  in  the  passage 


at  SteubenvilUy  Ohio. 


3,37 


that  led  to  the  clerk's  table,  so  that  Hilles  could  not  get  to  the 
table,  without  forcing  his  way  through  them,  unless  they 
would  give  place. 

Hilles  was  disposed  not  to  attempt  this,  but  wrote  an  opening 
minute  at  the  stove,  near  the  centre  of  the  ile,  in  the  body  of 
the  meeting  house.  His  friends,  however,  insisted  that  he 
should  occupy  the  clerk's  table,  and  offered  to  make  way  for 
him.  A  column  was  soon  formed,  who  proceeded  to  force 
their  way  to  the  table — the  "  orthodox"  party  opposing.  The 
contest  was  doubtful  for  some  time. — While  the  parties  were 
warmly  engaged,  a  cry  was  raised,  that  the  gallery  over  the 
ministers'  seat  was  falling.  This  cry,  although  unfounded, 
created  great  alarm — a  rush  to  the  doors  and  windows  took 
place,  and  a  great  many  got  out  of  the  house.  This  alarm 
suspended  hostilities  for  a  moment,  but  as  soon  as  it  was 
generally  perceived  to  be  without  cause,  the  contest  was  re- 
newed. The  passage  to  the  clerk's  table,  which  for  a  moment 
had  been  left,  in  a  measure,  unobstructed,  was  filled  up  again 
by  the  "orthodox"  party.  The  "  Hicksites,"  however,  ad- 
vanced to  the  table.  Here  a  contest  took  place  for  the  pos- 
session of  it.  Taylor  was  pressed  between  the  table  and  door, 
and  considerably  injured.  The  table  was  soon  broken  to 
pieces.  The  tumult  then  died  away.  One  of  the  leading 
"orthodox"  cried  out,  "that  is  enough — we  surrender." 
Shortly  after  this,  one  of  the  "  orthodox"  party  proposed,  that 
they  should  adjourn  until  the  next  day.  This  was  agreed  to; 
and  to  render  it  more  formal,  they  called  the  representatives, 
who  nearly  all  answered,  and  agreed  to  the  adjournment.  The 
"  orthodox"  accordingly  left  the  house.  The  party  leaving 
the  house,  being  more  numerous  than  those  who  remained. 
The  "Hicksites,"  remaining  in  possession,  proceeded  with 
their  business.  The  next  day,  the  "  orthodox"  came  forward, 
in  a  body,  and  demanded  possession  of  the  house,  which  was 
refused ;  but  they  were  told  that  they  might  come  in,  and  unite 
with  the  "  Hicksites,"  who  were  in  possession. 

The  "  orthodox"  adjourned  to  another  place,  and  held  their 
Yearly  Meeting. 

The  question  on  these  facts,  is,  was  this  proceeding  on  the 
part  of  the  friends  of  Hilles,  a  disturbance  of  the  meeting, 
coming  within  the  statute?  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  not  all 
the  "  orthodox,"  or  "  Hicksites,"  took  part  in  this  violence. 
Probably  much  the  greater  part  of  both  parties,  were  inactive 
spectators. 

In  considering  this  question,  it  is  necessary  to  inquire,  was 
this  election  of  Hilles,  regular,  *nd  binding  upon  the  meeting  r 
Or  did  Taylor  continue  the  regular  clerk  of  the  meeting?  The 
objections  to  this  appointment  of  Hilles  arc  several.  The  pro- 
position of  Frpnch,  that  the  clerk  had  become  disqualified, 


338 


Trial  of  Friends 


was  not  founded  on  any  fact  disclosed  to  the  meeting.  It  pro- 
posed to  condemn  him,  withoiit  giving  him  any  information 
as  to  the  offence  of  which  he  was  accused,  and  of  course  un- 
heard— without  giving  him  any  opportunity  of  making  3. 
defence.   This  was  contrary  to  the  first  principles  of  justice. 

The  reasons  for  the  motion,  assigned  by  French  in  his  tes- 
timony in  this  case,  do  not  show  any  actual  disqualification  of 
Taylor,  or  Kimberly,  the  assistant  clerk.  The  true  reason 
seems  to  be,  that  the  old  clerks  belonged  to  the  "  orthodox" 
party. 

The  proposition  to  elect  a  clerk  was  not  in  order,  being 
before  the  meeting  was  open,  and  ready  to  proceed  to  busi- 
ness— and  unprecedented,  at  any  rate,  in  any  body  Avhose 
proceedings  would  have  the  authority  of  precedent  for  that 
meeting.  The  witnesses  called  in  this  case,  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecution,  have  uniformly  pronounced  this  motion  irregular, 
and  out  of  order.  The  witnesses  on  the  other  side,  have  as 
uniformly  pronounced  it  regular,  and  in  order.  I  must  be  per- 
mitted to  judge  for  myself,  as  to  that  point,  from  the  facts.  I 
think  I  may  safely  venture  to  say,  that  in  no  deliberative  assem- 
bly in  the  United  States,  would  a  motion  be  in  order,  until  the 
assembly  was  opened  and  organized,  unless  that  motion  were 
necessary  for  its  organization;  unless  we  except  the  society  of 
Friends,  their  mode  of  proceeding  being  somewhat  peculiar. 

This  motion  was  not  in  order,  according  to  the  established 
mode  of  proceeding  in  the  Yearly  Meetings  of  that  society. 

By  their  mode  of  proceeding,  the  Yearly  Meeting  for  dis- 
cipline, is  not  opened,  until  the  clerk  reads  an  opening  minute, 
and  it  is  not  organized  until  the  representatives  from  the  Quar- 
terly Meetings  are  called — the  Yearly  Meeting  being  consti- 
tuted, in  part,  of  those  representatives. 

In  case  there  be  ho  clerk  of  the  meeting  present,  a  motion 
to  appoint  a  clerk  is  in  order,  that  being  necessary  for  the  or- 
ganization of  the  meeting.  In  this  case  there  was  a  clerk  at 
the  table,  qualified  and  ready  to  do  his  duties.  The  motion  of 
French,  then,  to  pronounce  sentence  of  disqualification  upon 
the  old  clerks,  and  to  appoint  others,  was  not  in  order,  ad- 
mitting that  the  meeting,  when  duly  organized,  had  a  right  to 
do  so,  of  their  own  will  and  pleasure. 

Further: — admitting  that  this  irregularity  might  be  got 
over,  and  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  would  have  been  re- 
gular enough,  in  case  no  objection  had  been  made — it  is  a  fatal 
objection,  that  this  proposition  was  not  in  fact  concurred  in 
by  the  meeting,  a  majority  being  dissentients.  It  is  true,  that 
the  witnesses  on  the  part  of  Mic  defendants,  state,  in  general 
terms,  that  there  was  a  general  concurrence  of  the  meeting  in 
the  proposition,  and  some  say,  even  more  general  than  is  usual 
in  that  meeting.    And  here,  1  must  be  pcrmitlod  to  judge  for 


at  Sltuhenvdle^  Ohio. 


339 


myself,  whcilier  the  concurrence  was  such  as  to  make  it  the 
act  of  the  meeting. 

The  witnesses,  who  express  their  opinion,  that  the  motion 
was  concurred  in,  go  upon  the  supposition,  that,  although  not 
more  than  one-tenth  of  -the  members  of  the  meeting  expressed 
their  concurrence,  and  that  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  the 
remainder  of  the  members  are  bound  by  it,  as  they  kept  si- 
lence— that  silence  on  such  an  occasion  gives  consent. 

It  is  true,  that,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  when  a 
portion  of  the  members,  although  very  small,  express  their 
concurrence,  and  none  oppose,  it  is  considered  the  sense  of 
the  meeting;  and  if  this  motion  had  been  made  after  the  meet- 
ing was  duly  organized,  and  had  proceeded  to  business  in  the 
usual  way,  and  had  been  concurred  in  by  even  twenty  mem- 
bers, and  none  opposed,  the  motion  would  have  been  carried, 
and  the  clerk  would  have  been  bound  to  enter  it  on  his  mi- 
nutes, and  read  it  to  the  meeting.  And  then,  if  still  unob- 
jected to,  it  would  have  been  the  act  of  the  meeting. 

But,  in  this  case,  the  motion  was  so  out  of  order,  and  the 
whole  proceeding  so  irregular,  that  the  opponents  of  the 
motion  were  not  concluded,  by  their  silence.  They  did  not 
understand,  at  the  time,  that  by  their  silence,  they  were  con- 
curring in  the  measure.  French,  himself,  in  his  testimony, 
says,  that  he  did  not  understand  that  the  "  orthodox"  united 
in  the  measure.  It  could  not  have  been  the  understanding  of 
any  one  present. 

If  I  be  correct,  thus  far,  it  follows,  that  the  proceedings,  by 
a  part  of  the  meeting,  to  expel  Taylor,  and  put  Hilles  in  his 
place,  were  not  warranted;  and  that  the  use  of  force,  was  a 
disturbance  of  the  meeting;  and,  therefore,  a  violation  of  the 
law  of  the  land;  for  the  law  abhors  violence,  and  will  not  per- 
mit any  one  to  use  it,  even  to  assert  his  rights,  except  in  ex- 
treme cases,  which  are  cases  of  necessity.  All  those,  who 
gave  their  countenance  to  it,  or  encouraged  it  by  any  means, 
are  equally  guilty.  I  do  not  mean  to  be  understood,  that  all 
the  "  Hicksitc"  party  were  guilty;  for  it  appears,  but  a  small 
portion  of  them  approved  the  use  of  force. 

With  respect  to  these  two  defendants,  it  is  proved  that 
James  took  an  active  part. — Hilles,  by  permitting  himself  to 
be  made  use  of,  countenanced  the  transaction,  and  is  equally 
guilty. 

The  view  I  have  taken  of  the  case,  renders  it  entirely  unne- 
cessary, that  I  sAo7//rf  examine  into  the  other  questions  which 
have  been  made  in  the  argument,  or  to  take  notice  of  a  great 
deal  of  the  testimony  which  has  been  given.  Judgmeni  ,  thai 
each  of  the  defendants  pay  a  fine  of  fivo  dollars. 


340 


Trial  of  Friends  at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 


The  fullijiviii!^  exfraci  should  have  been  iimerttd  in  page  ^7  <if  this  work. 

This  inJentare,  made  tlie  5lh  day  of  Ninth-month,  1817,  witnesseth  that 
Henry  Beeson  and  Mary  his  wife  "  do  grant,  bargain,  and  sell,  unto  Jona- 
than Taylor,  Uowse  Taylor,  Isaac  Parker,  James  Kinsey  and  Horton  How- 
ard, or  the  survlvers  of  them,  the  following  described  property:"  [here 
follows  the  description]  "  to  have  and  to  hold,  the  said  described  lot  of 
ground  to  the  said  Jonathan  Taylor,  &c.,  and  the  survivers  of  them,  and 
the  heirs  at  law  of  such  one  of  them  as  shall  survive  all  the  rest,  for  the 
uses  and  purposes  following,  viz :  For  the  use  of  the  Society  of  Friends 
constituting  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  as  a  site  for  Friends'  meeting  house, 
or  for  such  other  purpose,  as  the  said  meeting  shall  at  any  time  direct;  and 
it  is  the  express  understanding,  and  the  intent  of  .this^rant,  that  the  said 
Jonathan  Taylor,  he,  or  the  survivers  of  them,  or  the  heir  at  law  of  such  of 
them  as  shall  survive  all  the  rest,  shall  hold  the  said  described  property, 
subject  to  any  disposition  which  the  said  meeting  shall  make  of  the  same; 
and  the  said  grantees  above  named,  or  the  survivers  of  them,  or  tke  heir 
of  such  of  them  as  shall  survive  all  the  rest,  shall  at  any  time,  when  re- 
quested by  said  meeting,  make  all,  and  every  necessary  and  proper  deed, 
or  other  assurance,  for  transferring  the  title  to  the  said  described  pro- 
perty, to  such  persons,  and  upon  such  terms  and  conditions,  as  the  said 
meeting  shall,  in  a  regular  manner,  according  to  the  rule  of  proceedings  in 
said  meeting,  direct." 

"  In  testimony  whereof  the  said  Henry  Beeson,  and  Mary  his  wife,  have 
hereunto  set  their  hands  and  seals,  the  day  and  year  above  written." 

HENRY  BEESOIJ,  [i.  s.] 
MAIiV  BEESON,    [t.  s.] 


NOTE. 

The  preceding  work  is  presented  to  the  public,  as  a  full  and  faithful 
report  of  the  proceedings,  in  the  case  of  David  Hilles  and  Isaac  James, 
before  the  honourable  Jeremiah  H.  Haltock,  Esq.,  at  Steubenville,  from 
the  15th  to  the  26th  of  October,  inclusive,  1828.  It  will  be  found  to  con- 
tain, as  far  as  practicable,  the  language  employed  by  witnesses,  counsel, 
and  court,  together  with  all  the  authorities  quoted,  and  such  other  matters 
as  are  necessary  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  subject. 

The  peculiarly  interesting  circumstances  attending  the  origin  and  pro- 
gress of  the  suit,  and  the  numerous  and  highly  respectable  individuals, 
directly  or  indirectly,  implicated  in  the  question  at  issue,  suggested  as  the 
only  proper  course,  a  publication  of  the  entire  proceedings  without  note 
or  comment. . 

The  distance  of  several  hundred  miles,  has  entirely  precluded  the  co- 
operation, or  aid,  of  any  individuals  who  attended  that  trial,  other  than 
extended  by  the  politeness  of  the  Judge,  in  furnishing  his  decision,  and 
of  counsel,  in  furnishing  at  the  close  of  the  trial,  a  reference  to  authorities. 
For  these,  and  the  kind  attention  of  the  court  and  counsel,  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  trial,  wc  tender  our  respectful  acknowledgments. 

MARCUS  T.  C.  GOULD. 


